A COMPARATIVE STUDY 

OF THE 

INTELLIGENCE OF DELINQUENT GIRLS 



BY 

AUGUSTA F. BRONNER 



Submitted in partial fulfilment of the require- 
ments for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 
Faculty of Philosophy, in Columbia University 



PUBLISHED BY 

®farl|rr0 ffinUegf, OJolumbia llntvprBitg 

NEW YORK CITY 

1914 



A COMPARATIVE STUDY 

OF THE 

INTELLIGENCE OF DELINQUENT GIRLS 




BY 

AUGUSTA F' BRONNER 



Submitted in partial fulfilment of the require- 
ments for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 
Faculty of Philosophy, in Columbia University 



PUBLISHED BY 

^tnt^ttB (UtAUQt, CHolttmbia WinivttBit^ 

NEW YORK CITY 

1914 



Copyrigiit, 1914, by Augusta F. Bronner 



Gilt 

Th<s Uaireralty 
0£C 15 /9J4 



.B7 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to Miss 
Babcock, Director of the Harlem Branch of the Y. W. C. A.; 
to Mr. Robbins Oilman, of the University Settlement; to Miss 
Maud Miner, Secretary of the New York Probation Associa- 
tion, and her assistants; to Mr. Frederick Ellis, of the New York 
Neurological Institute; to Professor H. L. Hollingworth, of 
Barnard College; all of whom made it possible to obtain the 
subjects for this study. And most of all is indebtedness ac- 
knowledged to Professor E. L. Thorndike, of Teachers College, 
for suggestions in regard to tests and methods of scoring, indeed, 
for valuable help and encouragement throughout the work. 



CONTENTS 

PART I 

1. The Problem 1 

2. The Subjects 4 

3. The Tests Employed, Their Administration 7 

(1) In General 8 

(2) In Detail 9 

4. The Scoring of the Tests 11 

PART II 

1. The Original Scores 13 

2. The Final Scores 33 

3. Comparison of Final Scores of the Four Groups 37 

PART III 

1. Resuxts 38 

(1) Intelligence Tests 38 

(2) Fernald Ethical Discrimination Test 44 

(3) Adapted Completion Test 47 

(4) Supplementary Test in Physical Endurance 68 

PART IV 

1. Other Investigations 71 

2. Conclusions 86 

Bibliography 88 

Appendix 89 



A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE INTELLIGENCE OF 
DELINQUENT GIRLS 

PART I 

1. THE PROBLEM 

The question of the dehnquent girl is one that has aroused 
much interest of late. Varied are the explanations that have 
been given as to the causes that have led to the beginning of her 
career. Vice Commissions have attempted to investigate the 
economic and social conditions that are involved. In several 
places, notably at the Laboratory for Social Hygiene, Bedford 
Hills, and in Chicago, under the direction of Dr. William Healy, 
the mental status is being delved into as well. In the latter 
instance, the delinquent is being studied from every possible 
viewpoint — mental and physical, as well as environmental and 
social. These latter investigations tend to show that the problem 
is no simple one; there is no one ever-present and only cause, 
but a number of inter-related factors whose relative importance 
varies with each individual case. 

However, apart from those who are working experimentally 
and scientifically, we find many social workers and, indeed, many 
of the general public who have expressed their views on the 
subject. Very many of these have stated it as their opinion 
that delinquency is due very largely to the fact that the offenders 
are not sufficiently intelligent to care for themselves without 
running into difficulties, in fact that the large majority are sub- 
normal or feeble minded. 

Whether every feeble-minded girl is a potential offender, is 
easily led, the tool of a stronger-minded, more gifted person, is 
one question. But it is an entirely different question from the 
one we have in mind, namely, whether all social and moral 
offenders are mentally ill or mentally unfit. 

Are these offenders so lacking in capacity that they are unable 
to earn a livelihood in legitimate vocations ? Is it because they 

1 



2 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

are " industrial inefficients " that they begin careers of wrong 
doing ? Or is it because their lack of ability means lack of moral 
stamina as well that they are easily influenced, persuaded 
readily, to join the ranks of offenders ? 

How do they compare in general intelligence with their sisters 
who have never come in conflict with the law, with those who 
are leading lives where, at least, criminal tendencies, should they 
exist, are controlled ? 

Of course, one can not compare them with those offenders so 
much cleverer, or so much luckier, that they can offend without 
the offense being detected or known. For it must be remem- 
bered that in all studies of delinquents, it is only the caught 
delinquent that is discussed. Who knows aught of the many 
unknown law-breakers — perhaps equally or more culpable — 
who are clever enough to mingle with their fellows, unsuspected 
even of guilt. Because the feeble-minded girl is so much more 
readily — and therefore so much more often — detected and 
brought into court, is she the more likely to predominate in 
institutions where investigations are being carried on. 

In this study that same selective factor is operative among the 
delinquents investigated. They form one of the four groups 
that are compared. The second group is made up of students 
in the Freshman and Sophomore classes of Teachers College and 
Barnard College of Columbia University. The third is composed 
of girls who are members of evening clubs at settlements and 
branches of the Y. W. C. A. in the same districts of New York 
City from which the delinquent girls here studied largely came. 

The delinquent and college groups vary widely, of course, in 
many ways — probably in hereditary and environmental forces. 
It is conceivable that members of the two groups are equally 
well endowed intellectually; on the other hand, do certain 
tests differentiate the two groups, should this not be true ? 

In the third group, though the environmental factors, at least 
such as living conditions and educational opportunities, are 
more nearly the same as in the first group, there is another 
point to be considered. Those who compose this group are again 
selected after a fashion. For it is only the brighter, the more 
ambitious, probably, who join the classes that are available to 
all, and we have, therefore, subjects for testing who are not 



The Problem 3 

chosen at random from among the residents of these neighbor- 
hoods, but a group selected by certain ideals. 

In order to compare the delinquents with a group not selected 
for intellectual attainments, it was desired to use as a fourth 
group, subjects who are doing work of a character where no 
intellectual standard obtains. It was beheved that this require- 
ment would best be found by using a group of those engaged 
in domestic service. 

The problem, then, that is undertaken in this study, is to 
determine the intellectual status of a group of delinquent girls 
as compared with the intellectual status of several other groups 
that represent varying degrees of education and that are engaged 
in occupations requiring varied degrees of intelligence and 
ability. 

If the delinquent is less capable than the college girl or even 
than the girl who, though working daily, yet desires to improve 
herself by study at night, how does she compare with those who, 
though pursuing a vocation that demands less skill and training, 
yet earn a livelihood and are economically independent ? 



2. THE SUBJECTS 

I. The Group of Delinquents, hereafter called Group D, was 
composed of 30 girls who were living temporarily at Waverly 
House, the Detention Home maintained by the New York 
Probation Association. The subjects were chosen entirely at 
random, irrespective of the offense because of which each had 
come in conflict with the law, except that those who were foreign- 
ers whose command of English was such that they would be placed 
at a disadvantage, were not included. A second consideration 
that limited the subjects was that of age; all members of the 
group were between 16 and 22 years old. 

The group was composed as shown in Table I. 

II. The College Group, hereafter called Group C, was made 
up of students within these same age limits, with two exceptions 
where subjects were slightly older. Some of these were students 
of psychology but, with the exception of two, were unfamiliar 
with the tests, and even these two had performed only one of 
the actual tests used. 

III. The Group of Subjects found in Evening Classes, called 
hereafter Group E, were girls of the same ages who comprised, 
in one instance, a club devoted to educational pursuits at the 
University Settlement. They were all Jewish girls, all were 
working, and none of them had attended high school. The 
remainder of the group were members of two classes at the 
Harlem Branch of the Y. W. C. A. They represented, in all, 
various occupations; some were engaged in clerical work, others 
were clerks, still others were doing skilled factory work. 

IV. Because of the difficulty in obtaining subjects in the 
fourth group, called hereafter Group S, no attention was paid 
to the age qualification and a number of the subjects were over 
22 years old. None of them had ever engaged in any wage- 
earning occupation other than that of domestic service. Several 
originally included in the group were later omitted when it was 
found they were pursuing studies whereby they hoped to prepare 
themselves for other occupations later. All of the subjects in 

4 



The Subjects 

TABLE I 
The Composition of Group D, or Delinquent Girls 



Place of 
Birth 



School 

Grade 

Reached 



Best Occu- 
pation 



Highest 
Wage 



Offense 



U. S. 
U.S. 
U. S. 
U. S. 



8th. 
5th. 



Stenographer 
Candy packer 
Housework. . 



U. S 

Canada 

U. S 

Canada. . . . 

U. S 

Roumania, 

inU. S. 18 

yrs 

U. S.... 



Austria , 
U. S. 7i 
yrs 

U. S 

U. S 



Canada. 



U. S. 
U. S. 
U.S. 
U. S. 



U. S 

England. 
U. S 



u. s 

Russia. In 

U.S. 5 yrs. 

U. S 



u. s. 
u. s. 



England. 

U. S 

U. S 



Graduate 
high school 

3rd 

5th 

8th 

5th 

6th 



Actress .... 
Housework. 



$ 8.00 
5.00 
4.00 

18.00 
5.00 



a wk. 



Factory. 
Factory. 
Factory. 



6th. 

7th. 



3rd. 
6th. 
8th. 



2nd yr. high 
school . . . 

4th 

5th 

5th 

7th 



Dishwasher . 
Housework. . 



Operator 

None 

f Actress 

\Factory. . . . 
Telephone 
Operator . . 

Factory 

Housework. . 

Factory 

Salesgirl . . . . 



5.50 

10.00 

6.00 



6.00 
5.50 



5.00 



3.00 
6.00; 

10.00 
7.50 
2.50 
8.00 
6.00 



nt. 
wk. 



2nd yr. high 
school .... 

1st yr. high 
school 

1st yr. high 
school 

8th 



None... 
Clerical. 



6th 

1st yr. nor- 
mal 

6th 

7th 



Bookkeeper . 
Salesgirl .... 

Waitress .... 



8.00 



10.00 
7.00 



5.00 



Factory. 
Factory. 



7th. 
6th. 
6th. 



Cashier 

Book-binding 
Housework. . 



5.00 
10.00 

5.00 
6.00 
5.00 



Immorality. 
Sex, Grand larc'y 
Sex. 

Sex. 
Sex. 
Sex. 
Sex. 
Sex. 
Sex, Runaway. 



Kidnapping. 
Sex, Stealing, 
False accusat'ns 



Sex. 
Sex. 
ISex. 

Sex, Stealing. 
Sex, Runaway. 
Sex. 

Stealing, Sex. 
Petty larceny, 
pickpocket, Sex. 

Sex. 

Sex. 

Sex. 
Sex. 

Sex. 

Shoplifting, Sex. 

Sex. 

Incorrigible, 

Stealing, Sex. 
Incorrigible. 
Sex. 
Sex, Incorrigible. 



6 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

this group were obtained in such a way that it was ascertained 
none had been guilty of any known wrongdoing ; in this respect 
they were comparable to Groups C and E and differed from 
Group D. They varied in nationality; 2 were Bohemians, 2 Nova 
Scotians, but the remainder were Irish or American born. All 
earned $5.50 or more weekly and all had retained positions for 
quite a period of time, one having been as long as ten years 
in one family. 



3. THE TESTS EMPLOYED 



The first group of five tests comprised the Easy Opposites 
Test, the Hard Opposites Test, Tests for Memory of Words, 
and Memory of Passages, and the Ebbinghaus Completion 
Test. These tests were among those used by Dr. B. R. Simpson 
in his study of " Correlations of Mental Abilities." Dr. Simpson 
tested two groups of adults representing, as far as possible, the 
two extremes of general intelligence as judged by the world. 
The " Good Group " was made up of 17 professors and advanced 
students of Colimibia University; those in the " Poor Group " 
were 20 men who had never held any position demanding a high 
grade of intelligence. Eighteen were men found at the Salvation 
Army and in a mission on the Bowery. 

The five tests selected were all found by Dr. Simpson to 
differentiate his two groups. He found the overlapping to be as 
follows : 

TABLE II 



Extent to Which Simpson' 


s " Poor " Group Overlapped His 
Group 


" Good " 


Percentage of" Poor " 
Surpassing 


Ebbing- 
haus 
Test 


Hard 
Opposites 


Memory 

of 
Words 


Memory 

of 
Passages 


Easy 
Opposites 


50% of "Good" 

Lowest 4 of " Good " or23J% 
Lowest 2 " " "12 % 
Lowest 1 " " " 6 % 





5 
5 









5 

10 
10 



10 
15 
40 









Here we see that in the Easy and Hard Opposites no member 
of the Poor Group attained as good a record as the poorest 
member of the Good Group, and in no one of these tests did any 
subject in the Poor Group reach the median of the Good Group. 
These tests, then, seemed fair means of determining the in- 
tellectual status of the subjects. 

Since our main group is one composed of delinquents, it was 
desired to find, if possible, some means of determining the in- 

7 



8 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

telligence of the various groups in regard to moral situations. 
It was clearly recognized that knowledge concerning moral 
elements is in no wise a guarantee of moral action. Ethical 
discrimination as found by tests indicates no necessary correla- 
tion with behavior. But negative results, and peculiar or con- 
fused judgments, might prove a help in understanding the atti- 
tude of the deHnquent. 

For this purpose, two different tests were used. First, the 
Ethical Discrimination Test of Fernald, reported in the American 
Journal of Insanity, Vol. 68, April, 1912. In this test the subject 
is asked to rank in the order of their gravity ten different mis- 
deeds. The second is an adaptation of the Completion Test. 
It consists of a series of very brief stories, or situations, containing 
blanks that permit of the use of alternatives and in which judg- 
ment is to be given in regard to the incident narrated. The 
" significant " passages are interspersed with a number of 
" innocent " passages in order that the subject may not realize 
the purpose of the test and may react more naively. 

Method of Administering Tests 
In General 

All members of Group D were tested individually; an eflfort 
was made to give each subject the advantage of quiet, uninter- 
rupted work. All tests were completed by all members of the 
group at one sitting, the time required averaging about two 
hours. Before beginning the tests, the good will and interest 
of each subject was sought and in almost every case the girls 
seemed interested, anxious to do their best, and cooperated in 
every way. 

Groups C and E were not tested in every case individually; 
in all cases they wrote their own replies. It was necessary, in 
order to save time, to test them in small groups of from two to 
four. In Group C the speed of writing would be much less 
variable than in Group D. In Group E it was more difficult to 
obtain subjects and it was often necessary to perform the work 
on two different evenings, since the subjects came late after a 
day's work and had not sufficient time at one sitting to complete 
them. In this way, the element of fatigue, should it have been 
a factor, was minimized. 



The Tests Employed 9 

Though no individuals in any group knew the object of the 
tests, other than that their results were to be used for purposes 
of comparison, yet all were greatly interested. This was shown 
by the fact that in Group C the subjects volunteered their ser- 
vices and without objection gave the necessary time, while in 
Group E the subjects returned the second evening to complete 
the work. 

In Group S the conditions were not quite so uniform for the 
different subjects. The tests, with several exceptions, were 
given in the same manner as in Group D. The attitude of the 
subjects was somewhat different; they were more skeptical in 
regard to attempting them, they were older on the average and 
possibly less keenly interested. But as they were paid for their 
services, the majority endeavored to do what was asked of them 
as well as they could. 

Such differences in administration of the tests as circumstances 
required redounded to the advantage of Groups D and S, espec- 
ially to the former. Conditions there were best controlled and 
the tests given as nearly as possible in the same manner. 

In Detail 

The main effort in giving instructions as to the performance 
of the tests was directed towards making the point desired 
perfectly clear. In Group D and in the majority of Group S 
the subject did no writing, but responded orally, the experimenter 
writing the replies verbatim. A sufficient number were written 
for subjects in Groups C and E to make it practically certain 
that none wrote at quicker speed than the experimenter, so that 
none of the subjects was handicapped thereby. The speed of 
writing would have been so variable in Groups D and S that it 
would have been a large factor in distorting results in those 
tests where a time record was taken. 

In the Easy Opposites Test the subjects were told to give as 
quickly as possible a word that meant exactly the opposite of 
the word read. If necessary the word " opposite " was explained 
and several illustrations were always given. Then the word 
was read clearly, the reply written by the experimenter and the 
time record for each group of twenty words recorded. 

The Hard Opposites Test was given in the same way except 
that the subject was urged beforehand to give the best opposite 



10 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

she could and not to omit any word unless it were altogether 
unknown. 

In giving the Memory of Words Test the subject was told 
that a list of words would be read once and that, as soon as the 
last word was read, she was to repeat all the words she could 
remember. 

In the Memory of Passages Test, the passage was read at 
uniform rate and as distinctly as possible. At the conclusion 
the subject retold as much as she could, the experimenter writing 
it down verbatim. 

The Ebbinghaus Completion Test was first illustrated by a 
sample blank, any points not understood being explained. 
Then the subject looked on while the experimenter read the pas- 
sage, filling in the blanks as the missing words were given by 
the subject. Time record was also kept in this test. 

The adapted blanks, involving moral judgment, were com- 
pleted in the same way. In the Ethical Discrimination Test 
the ten cards bearing each one sentence were shown and read 
to the subject, the purpose of the test explained and each asked 
to arrange them in order. 

The tests were administered in the same way for Groups C 
and E as regards instructions, but the writing was done by the 
subjects themselves. 



4. THE SCORING OF THE TESTS 

As has been pointed out by a number of experimenters, any 
method of scoring tests such as those here used must be more or 
less arbitrary. The method here adopted seemed as fair as any. 

In the Easy Opposites Test the responses were scored on a 
scale of — | — 1 ; 1 when the word given was an exact opposite, 
and I if half right. The final record was obtained by adding 
1/8 of the time record for each zero and 1/12 of the time for 
each credit of ^. The average of the four separate tests was then 
obtained. 

The same method was pursued in the Hard Opposites Test, 
except that the scale used here was — 4. What credit should 
be allowed for each word given was determined by having the 
list graded by three persons — the experimenter and two assistants 
in the department of psychology. Where the same word had 
been given by subjects in Dr. Simpson's study, there were six 
evaluations that were combined to gain the standard. 

After this scoring was completed, the time record was increased 
by I for each word graded as 0; 1/8 for those graded as 1; 
1/15 for those graded as 2; 1/10 for those graded as IJ; 1/24 
for those graded 2|. These amounts were not taken arbitrarily 
but after experimenting to discover what penalizing would best 
evaluate both factors of time and accuracy. 

In the Memory of Words Test the final score was the number 
of correct words given. The incorrect additions were scored 
separately. 

The replies in the Memory of Passages Test were scored 
on a scale of — 25 by three persons, again the experimenter 
and the assistants. The average of these three scores was then 
used as the final score. 

In the Ebbinghaus Completion Test the blanks were scored 
first for excellence alone on a scale of — 10. The scoring was 
done by three persons as before, the average being again used 
as the final score for excellence alone. The penalizing for errors 

11 



12 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



was then made by adding 
f ollowino; scale : 



to the time score according to the 



Record Addition 25/10 of the time. 



22/10 
19/10 
16/10 
13/10 
10/10 
8/10 
6/10 
4/10 
2/10 



The method of scoring used by Fernald in the Ethical Dis- 
crimination Test was used, namely, each card was scored ac- 
cording to its placement for each subject on the scale of 1 — 10, 
10 indicating that the act was judged as worst, 1 as least bad. 

The adapted Completion Test was scored for general intelli- 
gence on a scale of — 5. 

In Table III are given the scores for the various tests in detail, 
while in Table IV are given the final scores which each subject 
received. 















PART 11 






















1. 


THE ORIGINAL SCORES 
















TABLE Ilia. 


COLLEGE GROUP (C) 




















Original Scores 
















Easy Opposites: 
































A 






B 






C 






D 






r 


w t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


C 1 


19| 


i 44 


48 


181 


u 


70 


85 


19 


1 


50 


58 


20 






41 


" 2 


19 


1 42 


47 


18 


2 


40 


50 


191 


* 


38 


41 


19 


1 


45 


51 


« 3 


m 


i 57 


62 


19 


1 


61 


69 


20 






64 


20 






47 


« 4 


19 


1 45 


53 


181 


H 


51 


64 


19 




48 


54 


19* 


'* 


46 


50 


" 5 


20 


.. 42 


42 


20 




52 


52 


20 






40 


19* 


* 


47 


51 


« 6 


19 


1 35 


41 


20 




41 


41 


20 






42 


20 






46 


« 7 


m 


11 42 


53 


m 


'i 


38 


41 


191 




38 


41 


18* 


i* 


42 


51 


" 8 


181 


H 45 


55 


20 






44 


20 






42 


20 






41 


" 9 


19 


1 47 


55 


18 


'2 


41 


51 


151 


■* 


50 


88 


19 




50 


58 


« 10 


191 


i 37 


40 


20 






40 


191 


4* 


40 


43 


20 






42 


« 11 


20 




43 


20 






35 


18 


* 


48 


56 


19 




40 


47 


« 12 


19 


i' 56 


65 


20 






47 


19 


2 


52 


61 


20 






60 


« 13 


19 


1 59 


69 


19 


i' 


62 


70 


18 


1 


42 


53 


16 




48 


74 


« 14 


m 


i 45 


49 


20 






35 


20 






38 


19 




30 


34 


« 15 


20 




38 


20 






39 


191 


2 


40 


43 


20 


' 




43 


« 16 


20 




46 


20 






50 


19* 


* 


48 


52 


20 






48 


« 17 


m 


ii 55 


69 


19 


i' 


56 


63 


19 


* 


45 


53 


18* 


i* 


63 


76 


« 18 


19 


1 55 


64 


191 


* 


45 


49 


20 






35 


19 




43 


48 


« 19 


19i 


i 43 


47 


20 






47 


20 






45 


20 






47 


« 20 


19i 


i 44 


48 


19 


i" 


67 


75 


19 


r 


36 


42 


20 






40 


« 21 


19 


1 43 


50 


20 






37 


19 


1 


30 


34 


20 






29 


" 22 


19 


1 44 


51 


19* 


'i 


40 


43 


191 


* 


50 


54 


20 






25 


« 23 


181 


n 37 


45 


19 


1 


45 


51 


20 




35 


35 


19* 


'* 


37 


40 


« 24 


20 


.. 47 


47 


20 






47 


20 






46 


20 






46 


« 25 


191 


i 33 


36 


20 






40 


191 


'* 


35 


38 


20 






37 


« 26 


19 


1 40 


47 


19i 


'i 


40 


44 


191 


* 


41 


44 


19* 


■4 


42 


46 


« 27 


191 


i 48 


52 


20 






50 


20 






50 


20 






62 


« 28 


m 


i 35 


38 


20 






40 


20 






38 


20 






36 


" 29 


191 


1 41 


44 


20 






65 


19* 


.; 


44 


48 


19* 


"i 


44 


48 


« 30 


m 


i 45 


49 


20 






48 


18* 


1* 


43 


52 


20 






47 


" 31 


m 


1 41 


44 


181 


11 


44 


57 


20 






41 


20 






44 


« 32 


m 


i 52 


57 


18 


2 


53 


66 


20 






55 


19 




54 


61 


« 33 


19 


1 42 


47 


20 






46 


20 






27 


19* 


* 


46 


50 


« 34 


19 


1 37 


43 


20 






49 


19 


i' 


38 


44 


19* 


* 


41 


44 


« 35 


20 




46 


18 


'2 


48 


60 


192 


i- 


48 


52 


20 






46 


« 36 


20 




40 


20 






20 


192 


;■ 


35 


38 


19* 


■* 


40 


43 


r 


= number right. 


























w 


= number wrong. 


























t 


= time in seconds. 


























sc 


= score after 


penalizing, 


in terms of seconds 


















All fractions are 


dropped in scores. 




















^ + = nimiber above. 


























1- 


- = number itself. 

























13 



14 Comparative Study oj Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 
TABLE Illb. (GROUP C— continued) 



Hard Opposites: 
































w 


A 








B 








C 








D 








and 
































r 





i 


sc 


r 


w 


/ 


sc 


r 


w 


< 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


C 1 


48 


~ 


210 


386 


36 


4 


130 


361 


m 


3 


175 


426 


39 


3 


150 


378 


« 2 


50 


2 


96 


170 


43 


3 


70 


158 


39^ 


3 


90 


205 


51 




118 


187 


« 3 


53 




135 


196 


49 


1 


124 


315 


49^ 


1 


153 


266 


45§ 




188 


375 


« 4 


48 


"l 


155 


291 


46 


2 


147 


296 


42 


3 


130 


305 


50 




105 


174 


« 5 


58 




180 


204 


45^ 


4 


140 


304 


405 


3 


145 


352 


44 




205 


451 


" 6 


56 




130 


158 


46 


1 


145 


286 


43^ 


2 


130 


283 


45 




175 


384 


« 7 


44 


'4 


142 


321 


35§ 


6 


135 


396 


26 


9 


108 


400 


39 




133 


352 


« 8 


531 


2 


77 


119 


57 




82 


97 


481 


1 


80 


145 


49 




85 


151 


« 9 


43| 


1 


113 


239 


48^ 


'2 


98 


182 


36 


5 


90 


256 


41 




103 


246 


« 10 


52 


1 


130 


204 


55J 




110 


144 


52 




87 


134 


54§ 




122 


168 


« 11 


49 


1 


155 


274 


34 


5 


117 


343 


zu 


5 


112 


307 


42 




170 


284 


" 12 


43 


4 


110 


255 


4I2 


2 


126 


265 


42 


4 


160 


379 


43 




120 


279 


" 13 


51 


1 


167 


273 


44? 


3 


135 


293 


28 


3 


145 


369 


44 




150 


331 


" 14 


53 


2 


80 


105 


49 


1 


95 


170 


43 


1 


88 


187 


49 




85 


146 


" 15 


57 




97 


117 


39 


4 


89 


229 


43 


3 


92 


206 


48 




110 


208 


" 16 


511 


i 


190 


287 


49§ 


2 


128 


230 


4U 


4 


148 


358 


441 




140 


214 


" 17 


47 


2 


128 


225 


49i 


1 


122 


211 


40 


2 


120 


290 


41 




148 


355 


« 18 


53 


1 


103 


156 


43 


2 


115 


253 


37 


2 


93 


242 


42 




100 


233 


" 19 


55 


1 


110 


152 


54 




113 


158 


54 




107 


152 


53i 




130 


185 


" 20 


44 


1 


126 


277 


47 


'2 


108 


213 


m 


'4 


135 


339 


49 




77 


166 


« 21 


54i 




123 


168 


47 


1 


105 


195 


47 


2 


60 


118 


53 




72 


105 


« 22 


55 


i 


78 


108 


51 


2 


109 


185 


47i 


3 


103 


201 


50 




97 


165 


« 23 


50 


1 


105 


179 


5U 


2 


132 


221 


51 




98 


153 


49 




95 


168 


" 24 


481 


2 


224 


414 


46 


2 


101 


205 


31 


'7 


120 


333 


36 




100 


294 


" 25 


45 


2 


75 


155 


54 




72 


99 


50 




80 


132 


50§ 




105 


156 


« 26 


51 


2 


84 


142 


471 


"i 


87 


169 


46 


'2 


130 


263 


47 




102 


193 


" 27 


56§ 


1 


115 


149 


53 




108 


158 


55^ 




152 


197 


47^ 


2 


170 


306 


« 28 


52 


2 


180 


294 


41 


'4 


125 


303 


45 


1 


110 


208 


46 


2 


140 


284 


" 29 


49 


1 


170 


339 


46 


3 


92 


192 


40§ 


3 


170 


417 


40 


3 


130 


320 


« 30 


55 




85 


112 


511 




130 


217 


39 


4 


110 


286 


54i 




145 


199 


« 31 


49 


2 


97 


178 


45 


2 


115 


238 


m 


1 


107 


187 


56 




70 


113 


« 32 


44 


3 


105 


152 


46 


1 


108 


211 


46 


2 


105 


214 


45 


'2 


114 


238 


« 33 


57 


1 


78 


98 


53 




82 


126 


46- 


2 


82 


163 


45 


2 


73 


152 


« 34 


47 


2 


128 


249 


48^ 


i 


67 


120 


31 


7 


109 


354 


35 


6 


100 


295 


" 35 


m 


2 


135 


234 


42 


4 


90 


214 


40 


3 


100 


242 


44 


2 


105 


226 


« 36 


58 




85 


96 


hl\ 


1 


120 


156 


41 


•3 


110 


227 


m 




95 


142 



r = score of correct and partially correct. 
w and = number wrong and omitted. 
t = time score in seconds. 
sc = final score after penalizing, in terms of seconds. 



The Original Scores 



15 



TABLE IIIc. (GROUP C— continued) 
Memory for Unrelated Words: 

A B C D 



C 1 

« 2 

« 3 

" 4 

" 5 

" 6 

« 7 

" 8 
" 9 
« 10 

" 11 
" 12 
" 13 

« 14 

« 15 
« 16 
" 17 
" 18 
« 19 
" 20 

" 21 

" 22 
« 23 
" 24 
" 25 
" 26 
" 27 
" 28 
" 29 
« 30 

« 31 

" 32 
" 33 
" 34 
" 35 
« 36 



6 1 
10 1 

9 .. 

7 .. 



8 1 



?-=: number remembered, that are right. 
1^ = number added, not on list. 



16 Comparative Study oj Intelligence oj Delinquent Girls 



TABLE Illd. (GROUP C— continued) 
Memory, Logical Passages: 









A 








B 








C 








D 






B 


c 


F 


Av. 


B 
11 


C 
13 


F 
6 


Av. 
10. 


B 


C 


F 


Av. 


B 


C 


F 


Av. 


1 


11 


12 


8 


10.3 


14 


14 


11 


13. 


22 


19 


14 


18.3 


2 


14 


16 


12 


14. 


17 


20 


13 


16.6 


11 


12 


7 


10. 


14 


18 


12 


14.6 


3 


10 


12 


10 


10.6 


10 


10 


7 


9. 


6 


6 


3 


5. 


12 


11 


8 


10.3 


4 


12 


12 


7 


9.6 


12 


16 


7 


11. 


11 


17 


7 


11.6 


22 


19 


14 


18.3 


5 


12 


15 


10 


12.3 


14 


15 


10 


13. 


5 


4 


4 


4.3 


12 


12 


9 


11. 


6 


17 


10 


11 


12.6 


17 


19 


12 


16. 


18 


19 


11 


16. 


16 


17 


11 


14.6 


7 


8 


11 


7 


8.6 


10 


10 


7 


9. 


6 


5 


3 


4.6 


12 


14 


9 


11.6 


8 


16 


19 


13 


16. 


17 


20 


12 


16.3 


12 


16 


9 


12.3 


20 


18 


15 


17.6 


9 


12 


16 


8 


12. 


17 


15 


14 


15.3 


11 


11 


8 


10. 


17 


16 


13 


15.3 


10 


20 


18 


17 


18.3 


22 


22 


16 


20. 


17 


15 


10 


14. 


24 


18 


20 


20.6 


11 


15 


14 


9 


12.6 


14 


18 


11 


14.3 


8 


11 


4 


7.6 


14 


18 


6 


12.6 


12 


14 


13 


9 


12. 


16 


22 


14 


17.3 


14 


16 


11 


13.6 


12 


16 


6 


11.3 


13 


10 


8 


6 


8. 


7 


11 


5 


7.6 


7 


9 


3 


6.3 


14 


15 


7 


12. 


14 


10 


9 


7 


8.6 


12 


13 


10 


11.6 


14 


14 


8 


12. 


10 


14 


8 


10.6 


15 


17 


19 


15 


17. 


12 


16 


9 


12.3 


12 


16 


8 


12. 


24 


21 


21 


22. 


16 


11 


11 


4 


8.6 


14 


15 


11 


13.3 


8 


8 


5 


7. 


14 


17 


7 


12.6 


17 


24 


22 


20 


20. 


14 


14 


9 


12.3 


16 


18 


11 


15. 


12 


13 


8 


11. 


18 


17 


16 


9 


14. 


9 


9 


4 


7.3 


20 


21 


9 


16.6 


22 


22 


11 


18.3 


19 


14 


18 


14 


15.3 


16 


18 


12 


16. 


22 


22 


15 


19.6 


18 


16 


12 


15.3 


20 


12 


16 


8 


12. 


14 


17 


9 


13.3 


17 


17 


12 


15.3 


22 


15 


15 


17.3 


21 


20 


17 


12 


16.3 


14 


16 


7 


12.3 


20 


18 


9 


15.6 


22 


17 


14 


17.6 


22 


24 


23 


20 


22.3 


6 


15 


6 


9. 


17 


18 


10 


15. 


14 


14 


10 


12.6 


23 


10 


12 


6 


9.3 


7 


9 


3 


6.3 


8 


11 


5 


8. 


23 


23 


20 


22. 


24 


10 


11 


7 


9.3 


10 


12 


8 


10. 


12 


12 


7 


10.3 


12 


13 


10 


11.6 


25 


18 


14 


13 


11.6 


13 


15 


5 


11. 


9 


8 


4 


7. 


14 


19 


12 


11.6 


26 


14 


13 


11 


12.6 


16 


18 


12 


15.3 


22 


20 


8 


16.6 


22 


21 


13 


18.6 


27 


17 


14 


20 


17. 


15 


17 


8 


13.3 


10 


11 


6 


9. 


13 


14 


8 


11.6 


28 


14 


18 


8 


13.3 


23 


18 


15 


18.6 


16 


17 


12 


15. 


17 


19 


10 


15.3 


29 


14 


16 


14 


12.6 


12 


15 


11 


12.3 


14 


18 


7 


13. 


17 


20 


6 


14.3 


30 


20 


21 


18 


19.6 


22 


23 


14 


19.6 


20 


19 


13 


17.3 


18 


18 


16 


17.3 


31 


12 


13 


8 


11. 


8 


10 


4 


7.3 


9 


8 


6 


7.6 


8 


10 


3 


7. 


32 


7 


14 


4 


8.3 


11 


9 


7 


9. 


17 


14 


12 


14.3 


14 


13 


9 


12. 


ii 


14 


15 


11 


13.3 


12 


13 


9 


11.3 


20 


18 


15 


17.6 


22 


20 


17 


19.6 


34 


10 


12 


7 


9.6 


11 


14 


7 


10.6 


6 


8 


3 


5. 


10 


13 


9 


10.6 


35 


8 


12 


4 


8. 


11 


11 


7 


9.6 


5 


7 


4 


5.3 


7 


10 


5 


7.3 


36 


16 


16 


10 


14. 


18 


18 


9 


15. 


22 


21 


16 


19.6 


18 


22 


14 


18. 








5 = 


= scored by 


writer. 


























C = 


= scored by 


assistant 


in Psychological Department. 














F^ 


= scored by 


assistant 


in Psychological Department. 














Av.= 


= avera 


ge of 3 


5cores. 



















The Original Scores 17 

O'*^c0OOiOO'^00O0vO00-^00C0t^-*OOCS-*00OO00V000CS(M00O'O0\CS 
t^Os©OOOOM300\000\'^OOCNOrOrtHOOOlOCN^->-ICMOr<IC<IO-<-H^CMt^t-lO\OOrO-* 
^-( fO ^-H VO ■^ •rH CS tH T-l (N tH -.-H i-H CN T-( r<l i-l CN CN -^ T-l tH i-H tH T-H (N ■■-I ■<-! T-l »-H 

vOt^ ID '-I O O CN lO O O O to O O •^ fO lO O lO \o O O O VO Ot^vOtor^O • \0 ro t^ lO 
0>0'>-irCOOOr»5t^vot^iOCOO<noOCNrDO\'*ooOoOvooor>.. Ol^T-iOOOt^ -roroooro 

1-1 CN i-H CO 1-H tH i-H •tH »-H tH •^ t-( Cs| •r-^ t^ -tH tH i-H i-I • -rt -rt 

fqlMN|MH!rtHlNN|« NlmN|P3N!WT-lIeONl05!MlMM|MHl«H|«NieO NlMH|«MlrtN|« r-)|eo NlrtCl|rt HlrtN|rtHl«M|MM|MNleON|WFHl«l 

^0^»oo^^'*0^t~oo*~oo^-\Ooo^^t^ciOoo■^oo^>•oo^>•oOM3oooo^:^0\0^>.^>■o^oo^:^^>■oo 

iH!W rtlN f-llN WIN H|« rt|N H|«H|NH|N 

lOC^C^00'*lOO\C^O\O^C^^>•0^00000^0\■T)^CX)00Ot^00lOO^0^00O^»i:^t^O0^00000^ 

00t^00t^"*0st^O\Ot>0t--iO0Nt^t^Os00TtiCht^J>-0000t^MD0s00Oi0X>-t^CM>-t~f^00 

t^t^00l>-v000t^000000t^J>-00t^^-00t^-^00t^0\J>-00J>-00C0l:^Ot^00l>-O\Ovt~t^00 

Cv^»OiOcr)l>-0«*5^0«0'^Of<:>Tt<OiOro\OOOfOt^OOOroOroi^vOONOO\OCSCOT--iioiO 
\0>0'-iOOP<100>0»OiO>OOOrtiiO'Oir5000vOvOOOiO'*iOVOOsiOOOvOvOrtiiO(^t--<^M3>0 

iH CS TH 1-1 1-1 ,-( 

pq\0»0 "^ • -t^O -OrH • •O"0f0i-H^0\t^ • -fOiO -CNVOO. O • • -CO ■ • 
IT) 00 ^H -On • • -* to -t^O • • ir> 00 O -rJH lO lO lO ■ ■ >0 1^ ■ O \0 Tf< Tti • • ■ t^ • • 

CSJ... . y-i . . -^ . . . ..... 

iHlWMlM THilNNlW H|rtHlNr»|MNlP3 «[« N|cOHlWN|MHieO «!« N|«HleO N1«H|M«|« H« 

00iOOO\J>-OOO\C\Os00000NOCM3NCht^0\00OO\OO0\O\00O*^0s0vOOMDOO 

00^OO00OOOOO00^-OOl:^C^C^0000^^OOOO00O0^O00C^O^OO\0OO 

O\t^OCM>-OOai0NO\0\00OOOOsO\t^O00OOOO00O00O00CM3\OO>OOO 

OOVOOOsOOOOC\0\OCKOOO\OOOsOJ>-0\OOOCKOOO\OsCOOJ>-0\0\00000 

oot~-'^Ooorvl»OOOOrooOt^i*i-irOrhuom'*'<*i')»00!r!Oi-<OiOOOi-i«OTt<rrivO 
t^C^f0f0Ot^<>lM3t^Os00cr)C<IvO'*CNcr50000v0»O-^'Oc0O'O0\rC00>Ol>-f0'*^000\ 

CSl,-li-li-( 1-i i-(i-l tH T-l iH i-liH tH ^ tH 

lOfNKNOOOCM -OOOn CNiri^i^T^ -CNfC • VO 00 »0 ■* • ■ • >0 • • (N • i-( ID rO iH O 
VDVO'^OOM^ • ID ID t^ lO 1-H Os VO CO • i-i iD • ■<* (M tJH iD • • • ^O • • tjh ■ ro i* »D ro 00 

NlPS N[« N|eo Nirt NlnrtlNT-iIco M[M N[co Nleow|mMlPSH|M 

Ch00C7s00ONOOCM:^0st^O\t-O0\O0\\OO00 00 0N0\O0\O00Oav0sOO\0N00 00 0s 

0\000\CNa\OO0\t^O\^CM>-O0\O0\^O0000O\OOOO00OOO\OOO<:M:^0s 

0^000^000^OO0^00O^J:^O^t^OC^OC^v0O^>■C^0^C^OOO00OOC^OOOO^00C^ 

OsOOO\0\CKOOC\000\OOONOnOO\OOnOOOOOO\OnO\00\OOOOOsO\OCNOsOOOnOv 

'O'^OO(Mi-iiDO>D00iDiD000000C^rC00OOO<NO\OO001>-OiDf0OCNO00OiD 
0\iDM3C\0>D-*co"OiD'*0\OOfO>DJ:^TH«D-t^»DiD'^'!ti0^rDCSOOVO'*VDt^-*i*ro\0 

OlD • ID »D fC -00 ••^00 • CN O 00 • 

00 ■* -t^oo t~» -1* • a\ 1* ■ •* ^o • 

NICO CIICC N|C0 Niro NinPllM NieONin N|«N|M N|« MIM N|cO 

00<7sO0sO\O\OOOOOO00O00O0000OO\O0\OiOO0\OsOO0nOOO\0\00O 

0^C^OC^0\OOOOOOOC^OC^O0^C^O0\OOOOOOOOOOOOOC^0\O 

O\0nO0nO\OOOOOOO00O0nO0000O0sOOOOOOOOOO\OOO0sOsO 

000\O0s0\0sOOOOOOavO00O0000OChOOOsOO0NO\OO0sOO0NO\00O 

i-ICNfOi^iDVOt^OOONOi-HCSrO'^iDMDt^COONOi-iCSrO'^iDOt^ooONO'^CSCOTtiiDVO 
i-ii-ii-iTHi-ii-iiHiHi-ii-HCNCNCNicNoqcsiCNCSCNCSrofOrDrOfOrOfC 



^.§8 



II 
QQ 



o o 
'o'o 

^^ 

in xn 

PhCU 



tH tH Ih I-i Vh 



cqtofe, 



18 



Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



TABLE Illf. DELINQUENT GROUP (D) 
Original Scores 



Easy Opposites: 


























A 






B 






c 






D 






r 


w t 


sc 




w t 


sc 


r 


w t 


sc 


r 


w t 


sc 


D 1 


9§ 


. 52 


123 


14^ 


. 45 


79 


8 


. 50 


125 


8 


. 62 


155 


" 2 


17 


. 67 


97 


161 


. 47 


69 


171 


. 48 


66 


15- 


. 52 


85 


" 3 


19 


. 40 


47 


17 


. 45 


63 


14^ 


. 38 


67 


18- 


. 40 


48 


" 4 


171 


. 52 


69 


171 


. 48 


64 


19^ 


. 34 


37 


19- 


. 38 


41 


« 5 


10 


. 52 


117 


141 


. 48 


82 


15 


. 72 


120 


12 


. 50 


102 


« 6 


18^ 


. 64 


80 


181 


. 120 


145 


m 


. 90 


136 


16| 


. 90 


132 


« 7 


12 


. 130 


154 


14 


. 115 


184 


13 


. 120 


230 


lU 


. 131 


319 


« 8 


13 


. 55 


99 


15 


. 47 


77 


13 


. 75 


144 


16 


. 50 


75 


« 9 


134 


. 66 


122 


111 


. 65 


135 


10 


. 98 


221 


71 


. 63 


163 


« 10 


12 


. 59 


120 


lU 


. 47 


98 


11 


. 59 


125 


8* 


. 56 


138 


" 11 


15i 


. 65 


105 


15 


. 58 


96 


161 


. 57 


83 


19 


. 43 


48 


" 12 


14 


. 52 


96 


12i 


. 45 


91 


lOi 


. 60 


133 


11 


. 62 


137 


« 13 


18 


. 65 


84 


17 


. 70 


97 


15 


. 70 


119 


17^ 


. 70 


94 


« 14 


19 


. 48 


54 


17 


. 72 


102 


14^ 


. 44 


76 


18? 


. 49 


59 


« 15 


161 


. 42 


62 


18 


. 66 


82 


18 


. 67 


86 


13i 


. 89 


164 


« 16 


7^ 


. 132 


341 


11 


. 116 


359 


7 


. 107 


281 


6^ 


. 82 


222 


« 17 


14^ 


. ,53 


93 


151 


. 49 


77 


16 


. 66 


102 


m 


. 70 


114 


« 18 


m 


. 42 


51 


15 


. 43 


70 


18 


. 65 


87 


17 


. 57 


81 


« 19 


13 


. 77 


135 


n 


. 88 


206 


8^ 


. 52 


128 


10 


. 65 


146 


« 20 


181 


. 55 


69 


I7i 


. 50 


69 


14§ 


. 60 


103 


17 


. 62 


88 


« 21 


15 


. 55 


94 


15i 


. 73 


116 


11 


. 67 


145 


6i 


. 72 


198 


« 22 


13 


. 145 


259 


m 


. 79 


96 


16 


. 64 


99 


m 


. 59 


86 


« 23 


191 


. 50 


54 


18 


. 55 


69 


18i 


. 70 


88 


m 


. 68 


83 


« 24 


17 


. 68 


95 


m 


. 52 


65 


161 


. 58 


88 


171 


. 70 


94 


« 25 


11 


. 100 


224 


12 


. 130 


258 


11 


. 80 


170 


6 


. 70 


192 


« 26 


2 


. 95 


311 


2 


. 124 


412 


1 


. 65 


219 


2- 


. 65 


247 


« 27 


18 


. 35 


44 


19 


. 40 


45 


151 


. 63 


100 


16 


. 48 


70 


« 28 


171 


. 43 


57 


17 


. 40 


55 


18 


. 59 


76 


19 


. 43 


47 


« 29 


17 


. 47 


65 


17^ 


. 50 


62 


15^ 


. 57 


91 


17 


. 48 


66 


•« 30 


4 


. 52 


164 


81 


. 53 


134 


9 


. 40 


95 


11 


. 40 


87 






r 


^ number r 


ght. 




















w 


= number v. 


^rong. 




















t 


= time in s 


3Conds. 




















sc 


= score, in 


terms of seconds, af 


ter penalizing. 












All fractic 


)ns are 


dropped in 


scores. 


















■f ^ nu 


mber above. 




















\ - 


- = nu 


mber i 


tself. 















The Original Scores 19 

TABLE Illg. (GROUP D— continued) 



Hard Opposites: 




































A 








B 








C 








D 






1 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


D 




20 


60 


360 




20 


60 


360 




20 


84 


424 




20 


90 


450 


a 


2 


9 


16 


115 


597 


m 


12 


130 


550 


n 


16 


97 


491 


6 


18 


75 


413 


u 


3 


11 


15 


190 


951 


23 


12 


95 


386 


10 


15 


155 


786 


23 


9 


200 


770 


« 


4 


29 


9 


165 


579 


36 


7 


200 


588 


27i 


8 


165 


589 


29 


6 


102 


339 


« 


5 




20 


60 


360 




20 


53 


318 


4 


18 


90 


507 


1 


19 


90 


529 


li 


6 


ii§ 


16 


150 


600 


2U 


12 


210 


875 


10 


13 


223 


1049 


21 


12 


240 


1008 


« 


7 


5 


18 


150 


835 


9 


17 


140 


735 


5 


18 


145 


808 


7 


16 


153 


813 


« 


8 




20 


105 


630 


3 


19 


110 


633 


3 


19 


110 


633 


14 


14 


80 


381 


« 


9 


'3 


19 


83 


477 




20 


70 


420 




20 


94 


564 


2 


19 


60 


349 


" 


10 


3 


19 


70 


403 


6 


18 


73 


402 




20 


72 


432 




20 


75 


450 


« 


11 


5 


18 


143 


797 


20 


13 


135 


583 


2U 


11 


110 


447 


15 


15 


140 


665 


« 


12 


7 


17 


60 


323 


6 


18 


61 


356 


15J 


13 


67 


309 


6 


17 


58 


316 


« 


13 


29i 


9 


160 


557 


in 


9 


155 


559 


21 


11 


150 


624 


21 


10 


125 


510 


« 


14 


18 


12 


147 


645 


27 


9 


243 


645 


191 


10 


129 


539 


17 


11 


123 


539 


« 


15 


161 


14 


162 


756 


181 


13 


106 


575 


14 


14 


115 


549 


23 


11 


120 


481 


« 


16 


6 


18 


170 


935 


9 


17 


126 


662 


3 


19 


116 


667 




20 


99 


594 


« 


17 


21 


12 


124 


540 


22 


12 


155 


639 


181 


11 


195 


840 


12 


13 


150 


723 


« 


18 


25 


9 


142 


535 


16 


11 


115 


489 


21 


10 


143 


584 


19 


10 


150 


630 


« 


19 




20 


108 


648 


6 


18 


84 


462 


3 


19 


100 


575 


3 


19 


110 


633 


" 


20 


12 


15 


122 


603 


13 


15 


92 


449 


9 


17 


95 


505 


8 


15 


110 


571 


« 


21 


8 


15 


73 


380 


6 


18 


71 


391 




20 


77 


462 


1 


19 


72 


423 


« 


22 


11 


16 


192 


984 


12 


16 


208 


1040 


h 


18 


125. 


701 




20 


125 


750 


« 


23 


35 


6 


200 


440 


491 


2 


142 


256 


29 


9 


132 


464 


30 


6 


106 


273 


<' 


24 


10 


16 


110 


564 


16 


14 


109 


505 


15i 


14 


140 


655 


6 


17 


140 


762 


« 


25 




20 


80 


480 


2 


19 


75 


436 




20 


50 


300 


3 


18 


95 


517 


« 


26 




20 


100 


600 




20 


120 


720 




20 


90 


540 


2 


19 


73 


425 


« 


27 


26 


9 


140 


517 


30 


9 


145 


499 


19 


11 


80 


341 


15 


13 


100 


463 


« 


28 


37 


5 


88 


240 


30 


8 


102 


344 


28 


7 


180 


638 


24 


8 


200 


643 


« 


29 


19 


13 


72 


315 


19 


12 


102 


441 


3 


19 


97 


558 


18 


13 


67 


297 


« 


30 


5 


17 


60 


330 


9 


17 


85 


446 


2 


19 


60 


349 




20 


60 


360 



r ^^= score of correct and partially correct 
w = number wrong. 

t = time in seconds. 
sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. 



20 Comparative Study oj Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

TABLE Illh. (GROUP D— continued) 
Memory for Unrelated Words: 

A B C D 



D 1 


4 


' " 


5 




6 


2 


5 




« 2 


7 




7 




4 




5 




« 3 


7 




5 




9 




8 




" 4 


8 




8 




7 




8 




« 5 


10 


i 


7 




5 




10 




" 6 


4 




3 




7 




5 




" 7 


3 




5 




4 




3 




" 8 


10 


i 


9 




8 




8 




« 9 


4 


1 


5 




6 




2 




« 10 


9 


1 


8 




5 




7 




« 11 


5 


3 


3 




6 




4 




« 12 


5 


3 


7 




8 




9 




« 13 


8 




5 




6 




7 




« 14 


8 


i 


7 




3 




7 




« 15 


7 




7 




6 




2 




« 16 


6 




4 




6 


2 


8 




« 17 


9 




8 




4 


2 


10 


2 


« 18 


7 


3 


6 




6 


3 


7 




« 19 


4 


1 


3 




7 


3 


6 




« 20 


5 




5 




6 




5 




« 21 


13 


2 


5 




10 


1 


5 




" 22 


7 




4 




5 


1 


5 




" 23 


7 




7 




6 




6 




« 24 


2 


3 


5 




5 


3 


6 




« 25 


2 


9 


3 




4 


2 


1 




« 26 


3 


1 


2 




7 




5 




« 27 


7 




5 




5 




8 




« 28 


7 


"i 


7 




9 


i 


7 




« 29 


4 




7 




6 




5 




« 30 


4 


'4 


4 


(5 


3 


"l 


6 





r = number remembered, that are right. 
w = number added, not on list. 



The Original Scores 2 1 



TABLE Illi. (GROUP D— continued) 
Memory, Logical Passages: 









^ 








5 








C 








D 






B 


C 


F 


Av. 


B 


C 


F 


^z;. 


B 


C 


F 


^r. 


5 


C 


7^ 


^v. 


1 


3 


3 





2. 


5 


4 


2 


3.6 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


3 


2 


2 


2.3 


2 


7 


9 


3 


6.3 


7 


8 


3 


5.6 


5 


5 


2 


4. 


10 


10 


7 


9. 


3 


12 


13 


6 


10.3 


10 


12 


2 


10.6 


7 


6 


4 


5.6 


6 


6 


3 


5. 


4 


4 


4 


2 


Z.3 


13 


14 


5 


10.6 


6 


5 


3 


4.6 


12 


14 


7 


11. 


5 


6 


9 


3 


6. 


10 


12 


4 


8.6 


6 


7 


5 


6. 


9 


11 


6 


8.6 


6 


11 


12 


2 


8.3 


11 


8 


2 


7. 


2 


1 





1. 


5 


7 


3 


5. 


7 


4 


5 


3 


4. 


5 


6 


1 


4. 


4 


4 


2 


3.3 


5 


5 


3 


4.3 


8 


5 


6 


2 


4.3 


7 


7 


2 


5.3 


3 


5 


1 


3. 


2 


4 


1 


2.3 


9 


2 


3 


1 


2. 


5 


4 


3 


4. 


3 


4 


2 


3. 


3 


3 


1 


2.3 


10 


3 


3 





2! 


6 


5 


2 


4.3 


3 


2 





1.6 


4 


3 


1 


2.6 


11 


2 


3 





1.6 


4 


5 


2 


3.6 


5 


10 


2 


5.6 


4 


4 


2 


3.3 


12 


4 


7 


2 


4.3 


8 


10 


3 


7. 


4 


2 


1 


2.3 


5 


5 


2 


4. 


13 


4 


8 


3 


5. 


11 


14 


8 


11. 


10 


10 


4 


8. 


7 


8 


3 


6. 


14 


8 


6 


3 


5.6 


7 


11 


3. 


7 


4 


6 


2 


4. 


5 


10 


4 


6.3 


15 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


8 


12 


4 


8. 


5 


8 


3 


5.3 


4 


9 


2 


5. 


16 


4 


5 


2 


3.6 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


4 


2 


2 


2.6 


4 


4 


2 


i.i 


17 


7 


8 


2 


5.6 


10 


13 


6 


9.6 


5 


9 


3 


5.6 


4 


8 


2 


4.6 


18 


8 


12 


4 


8. 


14 


17 


8 


13. 


8 


10 


6 


8. 


14 


18 


11 


14.3 


19 


5 


7 


1 


4.3 


4 


3 


1 


2.6 


3 


3 


2 


2.6 










20 


2 


2 





1.3 


8 


8 


4 


6.6 










8 


7 


'4 


h'.z 


21 


2 


6 





3.6 


6 


4 


4 


4.6 


5 


8 


4 


4.3 


6 


6 


4 


5.3 


22 


3 


3 


1 


2.3 


7 


6 


2 


5. 


3 


4 


1 


2.6 


4 


5 


2 


3.6 


23 


12 


14 


9 


11.6 


13 


17 


8 


12.6 


19 


22 


16 


19. 


17 


18 


11 


15.3 


24 


8 


9 


5 


7.3 


7 


8 


5 


6.6 


6 


7 


2 


5. 


10 


8 


6 


8. 


25 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


3 


1 


1 


1.6 


3 


1 


2 


2. 


2 


2 


1 


1,6 


26 


3 


3 


1 


2.3 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


3 


2 





1.6 


27 


6 


8 


3 


5.6 


8 


8 


4 


6.6 


4 


6 


1 


3.6 


4 


6 


2 


4. 


28 


8 


9 


6 


7.6 


14 


15 


10 


13. 


10 


11 


4 


8.3 


14 


15 


11 


13.3 


29 


6 


4 


2 


4. 


6 


7 


2 


5. 


3 


2 


1 


2. 


5 


4 


3 


4. 


30 


5 


9 


3 


5.6 


4 


8 


2 


4.6 


6 


8 


3 


5.6 


10 


10 


7 


9. 



5 = scored by writer. 

C = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. 
F == scored by assistant in Psychological Department. 
^1;.= average of 3 scores. 



22 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 






iO0000tNiO^OOTt<00'*<OvOO00tS-^OO00f*5'-iOt-OOO'-iOO 

oO'-ifNior^oooot^<~o>oioO"^oo<r)OOOioooio^Hooooof^uD 

■^\00\>0'-'0\OOvOCNCv)OM3NO<^^000-HroO'^OiOJ^CsOOOt^OOM— 

tH .rt »-l rt .-I T-4 rH rH T-( T-l ,-1 (>) •^ i-H CN CM tH PT) '-I "-H CN ,^ rrj »-l ^H t-( ^H 



Ot^00-*^iOO'<*'-H^0iO<M00»r;r0iO<~0'OO»-ir0fOl^^0OO"0l— lOiO 
OMDONrOf^»00<^'-irO<^'*>Or^iOTt<CNiOO»-i(-crC\orcOOiO -inu-j lo 
00'Oir5ro<r)0(MT-i'-ifO''-iOrorOCvl<N'^OOfOCNt~>.roOOiOOOrt<iO 

'*oo>r)<r>^00-^t^CNi~-r^t^rs)t^OOPOON>orNitN\o-*LocNrMrooOO\ 

00O>Ov0iO0000Or^CNt^Or0t^»OOt^iOO"0O»OOOOOrCt^OO 

0000\0\0\00\MDO\«-iOOirH^OOO>Ot^vO»Ht^OOOOOiO— <0\0"0 



o . ° 
cogs 



THVO'OOOfOt^»HCMi-iCN>Orot^>OfOCNC»:>OTt<fO'-i<^OvOOO-*OOvO'0 
th lO t- 0\ ■* \0 CS (M '-I fO ■* fO \0 lO CO CS ro 'O Tf ro '-I fO O lO O ■># 00 vO r~ 



\0 vO O W 



>.g8 



BQ^ 



; te. 



(>JOcsOsroO\OOr-r<i^ovO-^oOO\Ti<TjH-#r:t<vOTt<C>oooOOrsU^ooa\ 
i0Cvl'-iOt^0S'-i\0^-*00L00s0sO-*00rt<CN>Or0-^t^CN<r)CN^^0\t^O\ 
fOcoCN'^»-ic^l-*"*'<MfN'*'-i'-i'-i'^OrO'-ivOiOCNl^ Tt<vO'»*»-i rr> 

OOOOOirn^OOojrOOOO -ONrotNCvjOiOVOfOOOiOOOOO -OCM 
^H O <r) 'O t^ 00 ro O OS OS "-I O ■ Ov OS CN OS OS OS On t-» Tfi so •^ 00 CN 00 • ro sO 
T-l CS '-I •rt »-H <>1 r<l • -r-i (Ts) .rt T-H »-l CN CN '-I ^ <M 



»-( SO rj< SO •* SO ^ ro ^ rO '^i ^ OS ■* SO CN LO SO ^ ^ CN oo lO O O OO O t^ so 
T-iasfO»-sOsO^-*T-i<y2-*'*OTjHt^«MsOt^T-(CN^CNCOsOOOOOt^so 
^HSO'*l>-rOJ>-'^«^'^'^iO^OiOl^CNL(-!SOO'-<T-<CNOs»OOOOOOt-»t~ 

rHio'*sO(r)t^'-i'rj<T-i(r^'*T}<osLosofNiosoT-(CN^cNoo'*oo^~ot^t~- 

i0O'*'O>-HCNrc\0^HT^O<~DO(N00O\i0CslTt<000s'OOl<MOir)00OOsO 
iOJ--OOOssO(~OOsO(NI-pHOt^tOT-i'*iOTfH»-iCsir<o(>j^iOiO<nsOt~--^f*5CN 
■^ CN T-i ro ^ ro lO Tf ro <~0 »-< •rt -rt «N PO CN ^-1 so so CN >0 CSI O so r-i <m ,-h 



OsOl^-0sCNOs(N'*CS<MiOP0O00iO(r)-<4<t^CNtNCSf0O»OOO00 00 00 00 

0'Ot^OsCSOCNiO<>aroiO'^OOsir!'^iOOOrocviCNCslO»OOOCsOOOsOO 
OsOt^OsCNOrOrOCNrosOfOCl^tO-^-^t^CNr^CNITtiOsOOCCsOOCsOO 
Or^000sr«:>0\tN'*cscNi0'*O00t^CN-^00r0CS(»TtOsoOO0000000\ 



o <u 

QQ 



O O 

Si' So 

s ° 

'o'o 

o CJ 

>s>, 

c n 



■2 •- .i2 
■r; '« '55 

g Ul M 
& C3 CJ 



COO 
CO tfi w 



cq^ott. 



Q = 



sss^ssssssssss 



The Original Scores 



23 



TABLE Illk. EVENING SETTLEMENT HOUSE GROUP (E) 
Original Scores 



Easy Opposites: 


























A 






B 






C 






D 






r w / 


sc 


r 


w t 


sc 


r w t 


sc 


r w t 


sc 


E 1 


18 . 


50 


64 


m ■ 


. 65 


78 


m . 


. 72 


90 


m ■ 


. 81 


88 


« 2 


17 . 


50 


71 


m . 


. 55 


67 


19 . 


. 55 


62 


20 . 


. 53 


53 


" 3 


m . 


104 


178 


17 . 


. 99 


141 


15i . 


. 85 


135 


20 . 


. 78 


78 


« 4 


19 . 


63 


71 


19 . 


. 52 


59 


m ■ 


. 50 


54 


20 . 


. 42 


42 


" 5 


181 . 


46 


56 


171 . 


. 58 


78 


18§ . 


71 


71 


m . 


. 74 


74 


" 6 


19 . 


59 


69 


18 . 


. 46 


58 


17h . 


. 54 


75 


151 . 


. 22 


36 


« 7 


m . 


42 


46 


m . 


. 58. 


77 


19 . 


. 65 


76 


19 . 


. 50 


54 


" 8 


20 . 




91 


20 . 




63 


20 . 


. 48 


48 


19 . 


. 83 


90 


" 9 


m . 


50 


54 


191 . 


'. 25 


28 


18i . 


. 38 


46 


20 . 


. 32 


32 


" 10 


19 . 


37 


42 


20 . 




35 


m . 


. 42 


46 


20 . 


. 41 


41 


« 11 


20 . 




60 


18 . 


. 70 


88 


191 . 


. 78 


84 


19 . 


. 81 


88 


" 12 


20 . 




46 


19 . 


. 54 


61 


19 . 


. 55 


64 


17 . 


. 42 


58 


« 13 


15 . 


70 


119 


16 . 


. 60 


90 


181 . 


. 100 


125 


15i . 


. 125 


198 


« 14 


191 . 


52 


56 


18 . 


. 60 


75 


17 . 


. 56 


79 


19^ . 


. 57 


62 


" 15 


17 . 


50 


70 


m . 


. 41 


44 


16 . 


. 82 


126 


18| . 


. 82 


99 


" 16 


19 . 


39 


46 


20 . 




43 


20 . 


. 44 


44 


m . 


. 47 


51 


« 17 


20 . 




77 


19 . 


.' 53 


60 


19 . 


. 65 


76 


181 . 


. 51 


61 


« 18 


20 . 


41 


41 


18 . 


. 41 


51 


19 . 


. 42 


49 


20 . 


. 35 


35 


" 19 


19 . 


55 


64 


191 . 


. 56 


61 


18 . 


. 58 


75 


20 . 


. 68 


68 


« 20 


m . 


45 


49 


17 . 


. 60 


83 


m . 


. 84 


91 


20 . 


. 73 


73 


" 21 


20 . 


46 


46 


18 . 


. 42 


53 


17i . 


. 74 


99 


19 . 


. 43 


48 


« 22 


14 . 


130 


232 


17 . 


75 


107 


14 . 


. 74 


132 


11 . 


. 66 


143 


« 23 


19 . 


80 


87 


20 . 




74 


m . 


. 76 


92 


19 . 


. 86 


97 


« 24 


191 . 


45 


49 


19 . 


; 50 


56 


18 . 


. 55 


69 


19 . 


. 43 


47 


" 25 


18 . 


83 


104 


16 . 


. 48 


72 


16 . 


. 74 


114 


HI . 


. 82 


179 


" 26 


19^ . 


72 


78 


20 . 




90 


161 . 


. 79 


116 


20 . 


61 


61 


« 27 


19^ . 


53 


57 


19 . 


.' 43 


48 


20 . 


. 48 


48 


20 . 


. 65 


65 


« 28 


18 . 


59 


69 


18 . 


. 56 


70 


18 . 


. 56 


72 


19 . 


. 109 


109 


« 29 


19 . 


83 


93 


20 . 




65 


161 . 


. 75 


113 


19 . 


. 83 


97 


" 30 


191 . 


100 


108 


18 . 


'. 71 


89 


17 . 


. 66 


91 


151 . 


. 66 


105 


" 31 


15 . 


90 


150 


17 . 


. 50 


69 


14^ . 


. 67 


118 


15 . 


. 63 


106 


« 32 


19 . 


54 


63 


20 . 




45 


17J . 


. 53 


70 


20 . 


. 50 


50 


" 33 


161 . 


118 


172 


13 . 


'. 76 


143 


181 . 


. 92 


112 


151 . 


76 


120 


" 34 


10 . 


99 


223 


171 . 


. 80 


107 


20 . 




176 


20 . 




98 






r 


^number r 


ight. 




















w 


= number \ 


vrong. 




















t 


^time in s 


econds. 




















sc 


= score, in 


terms of seconds, a 


ter penalizing. 












All fracti 


3ns are 


dropped in s 


cores. 
















i+ = m 


imber above. 




















4- 


— = m 


amber itself. 















24 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 











TABLE III 


. (GROUP E— continued) 










Hard Opposites: 
































A 








B 






C 








D 






r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


E 1 


24i 


9 


74 


353 


34 


7 


200 


613 


18i 12 


110 


478 


19 


11 


98 


417 


" 2 


30 


8 


124 


421 


38 


6 


180 


489 


29 8 


240 


828 


27 


8 


220 


787 


" 3 


13 


5 


240 


1170 


18 


12 


240 


1050 


101 15 


215 


1086 


13 


14 


210 


1012 


" 4 


34 


3 


250 


557 


36 


5 


188 


482 


29 7 


146 


492 


37 


3 


164 


434 


" 5 


35 


6 


181 


536 


39 


4 


108 


275 


38 5 


285 


756 


30 


7 


162 


536 


« 6 


52 


1 


200 


316 


33 


7 


198 


621 


16J 12 


100 


637 


25 


8 


162 


598 


« 7 








865 








666 


32 8 


345 


1127 


37 


6 


192 


545 


" 8 


44 


i 


60 


117 


36 


"5 


266 


563 


32 5 


200 


615 


32 


6 


203 


609 


" 9 


53 





105 


152 


44 


2 


55 


117 


37^ 6 


82 


229 


48 


1 


66 


118 


" 10 








156 








198 


441 2 


133 


282 


45 


2 


120 


235 


" 11 








603 








588 


22 11 


132 


534 


36 


7 


138 


398 


" 12 


sk 


'5 


204 


711 


33 


'7 


288 


870 


25§ 8 


193 


709 


38 


2 


170 


427 


" 13 


211 


9 


93 


364 


26 


10 


140 


525 


20 10 


190 


795 


18 


11 


180 


741 


« 14 


431 


3 


135 


302 


34 


6 


124 


358 


31 5 


115 


362 


29 


5 


83 


272 


" 15 


24 


11 


142 


469 


41 


4 


96 


233 


23 11 


161 


645 


20 


11 


156 


654 


" 16 


44 


2 


103 


221 


37 


5 


150 


410 


41 2 


190 


437 


45 


3 


146 


308 


" 17 








1087 








512 


21 11 


200 


1177 


23 


7 


176 


662 


« 18 


47 


'3 


113 


207 


m 


'3 


71 


162 


29^ 6 


300 


935 


47 


1 


120 


213 


« 19 


47 


2 


121 


236 


44 


1 


105 


216 


37 5 


202 


509 


32 


6 


203 


638 


" 20 








180 








210 


52 


144 


218 


50 





157 


229 


" 21 


37 


5 


162 


449 


44§ 


4 


134 


300 


28 7 


135 


473 


30 


6 


127 


408 


« 22 


3 


19 


115 


661 


21 


12 


57 


202 


4 18 


132 


743 





20 


126 


756 


« 23 


33 


7 


237 


758 


31 


6 


192 


590 


33 8 


300 


958 


38 


6 


178 


491 


« 24 


31 


9 


150 


517 


341 


5 


112 


318 


25 9 


124 


485 


ii 


5 


118 


359 


« 25 


23 


11 


111 


445 


18 


3 


273 


398 


4 18 


224 


1262 


14 


13 


218 


1023 


« 26 


25 


9 


270 


997 


34 


8 


144 


451 
















" 27 


43 


2 


109 


220 


45J 


3 


106 


223 


39 '4 


218 


551 


50 


'2 


177 


3i2 


« 28 


2n 


9 


176 


213 


37 


6 


200 


567 


25^ 9 


166 


438 


34 


5 


162 


478 


« 29 


27 


7 


207 


664 


32 


5 


218 


685 


19^ 11 


217 


933 


16 


12 


231 


1026 


« 30 








1183 








595 


2U 11 


122 


424 


14 


14 


125 


470 



« 31 15J 13 130 599 19 13 150 657 11 15 120 630 13 14 132 636 

« 32 44 2 141 275 43 3 80 181 38 3 133 296 52 102 156 

« 33 9 17 187 982 12 16 112 560 17 3 128 578 16 11 136 575 

« 34 20 13 192 805 30 8 133 451 20 123 738 3 19 108 621 

r = score of correct and partially correct. 
«; = number wrong. 

t = time in seconds. 
sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. 



The Original Scores 



25 



TABLE Illm. (GROUP E— continued) 
Memory for Unrelated Words : 



E 1 


9 




9 




10 


1 


10 . 




« 2 


5 




5 


\ ' 


8 




7 . 




« 3 


8 




8 


1 1 


4 




5 . 




« 4 


9 




7 




6 


'i 


7 . 




« 5 


8 


i 


5 


'2 


6 




6 . 




« 6 


8 




7 




7 


'i 


9 . 




« 7 


8 




9 




8 




9 . 




« 8 


9 


'i 


6 


i 


10 




7 


1 


« 9 


8 


1 


7 




5 




8 


1 


« 10 


9 


1 


12 


i 


5 




7 


2 


« 11 


7 




7 


2 










« 12 


6 


'2 


6 




"9 




■7 ; 




« 13 


11 




11 




7 




9 . 




« 14 


8 




6 




9 


'2 


9 . 




« 15 


10 




8 


'4 


10 


1 


10 


2 


« 16 


9 




7 




9 




7 


2 


« 17 


9 




11 


\ \ 


5 


i 


8 . 




« 18 


11 




4 




9 




8 . 




« 19 


8 


'2 


6 


"2 


8 




7 . 




« 20 


11 




8 




10 




7 . 




« 21 


8 




7 




10 


1 


9 


1 


« 22 


6 




5 


"2 


8 


1 


6 


1 


« 23 


10 


'2 


7 


1 


8 




9 


1 


« 24 


8 


1 


8 


2 


6 


i 


6 


2 


« 25 


6 


1 


5 


2 


8 




7 . 




« 26 


9 


1 


7 




8 




6 . 


. 


« 27 


11 


2 


10 


'3 


11 


'4 


9 . 




« 28 


7 


4 


5 


2 


6 


7 


5 


4 


« 29 


8 




8 


1 


10 




9 . 




« 30 


10 


i 


9 


2 


11 




6 


2 


« 31 


7 


2 


9 




9 




9 . 




« 32 


12 


2 


7 


'2 


9 


6 


9 


i 


« 33 


6 


2 


4 


1 


5 




6 . 




« 34 


6 


1 


5 


1 


4 


'2 


8 . 





r = number remembered, that are right. 
"w = number added, not on list. 



26 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

TABLE Illn. (GROUP E— continued) 
Memory, Logical Passages: 



E 1 









A 








5 








C 








D 






B 


C 


F 


^i;. 


B 


C 


7? 


ylj;. 


B 


c 


F 


^f. 


5 


C 


F 


Av. 


1 


6 


5 


3 


4.6 


3 


4 


3 


3.6 


11 


10 


7 


8.6 


10 


10 


3 


7.6 


2 


12 


13 


10 


11.6 


10 


9 




8.6 


2 


2 


1 


1.6 


12 


16 


7 


11.6 


3 


1 


3 


1 


1.6 


3 


4 




3.3 


6 


3 


3 


4. 


8 


9 


5 


7.3 


4 


1 


1 


1 


1. 


6 


6 




5. 


8 


9 


5 


7.3 










5 


12 


12 


7 


10.3 


6 


8 




6.3 


2 


2 


1 


1.6 


9 


9 


9 


'9;' 


6 


6 


5 


4 


5. 


5 


5 




4.3 


9 


9 


7 


8.3 


20 


20 


11 


17. 


7 


6 


7 


6 


6.3 


2 


4 




i.i 


3 


2 





1.6 


11 


13 


5 


9.6 


8 


5 


5 


5 


5. 


4 


3 




i.i 










6 


5 


1 


4. 


9 


16 


13 


9 


12.6 


12 


9 


6 


9. 


17 


19 


9 


is!' 


22 


23 


17 


20.6 



« 10 14 12 11 12.3 9 9 5 7.6 10 13 9 10.6 8 10 9 9. 

" 11 12 14 7 11. 9 10 5 8. 9 8 6 7.7 8 10 7 8.3 
"12 6 6 4 5.3 10 10 7 9. 7 8 4 6.3 15 17 12 14.6 



13 


8 


5 


3 


5.3 


6 


5 


2 


4.3 


9 


9 


4 


7.3 


5 


5 


4 


4.6 


14 


6 


6 


4 


5.3 


9 


8 


7 


8. 










10 


11 


9 


10. 


15 


4 


3 


2 


3. 


3 


3 


2 


2.6 


i 


i 





"^6 


7 


8 


3 


6. 


16 


6 


9 


4 


6.3 


7 


6 


5 


6. 










9 


10 


9 


9.3 


17 


9 


7 


5 


7. 


7 


7 


3 


5.6 


6 


'9 


'5 


'6;6 


14 


16 


9 


13. 


18 


12 


10 


10 


10.6 


13 


10 


9 


10.6 


20 


21 


10 


17. 


13 


17 


9 


13. 


19 


8 


7 


4 


6.3 


4 


4 


3 


3.6 


7 


11 


3 


7. 


9 


7 


4 


6.6 


20 


14 


12 


10 


12. 


6 


8 


5 


6. 


17 


14 


15 


15.3 


13 


8 


11 


10.6 


21 


12 


11 


10 


11. 


10 


9 


9 


9.3 


5 


10 


2 


5.6 


15 


18 


11 


14.6 


22 


3 


6 


3 


4. 


5 


4 


2 


3.6 


4 


4 


2 


3.3 


2 


3 


2 


2.3 


23 


9 


10 


6 


8.3 


8 


6 


7 


7. 


3 


3 


1 


2.3 


9 


12 


9 


9.3 


24 


9 


9 


8 


8.6 


11 


9 


6 


8.6 


11 


10 


4 


8.3 


12 


13 


10 


11.6 


25 


8 


8 


6 


7.3 


5 


5 


5 


5. 


3 


4 


1 


2.6 


7 


7 


4 


6. 


26 


7 


8 


5 


6.6 


6 


6 


5 


5.6 


6 


4 


2 


4. 


3 


3 


2 


2.6 


27 


12 


12 


10 


11.3 


8 


8 


7 


7.6 


15 


13 


10 


12.6 


18 


18 


7 


14.3 


28 


8 


6 


5 


6.3 


7 


6 


3 


5.3 


6 


8 


4 


6. 


11 


13 


9 


11. 


29 


5 


3 


3 


3.6 


7 


6 


5 


6. 


2 


2 


1 


1.6 


3 


7 


2 


4. 


30 


3 


4 


1 


3.6 


8 


11 


9 


9.3 


4 


4 


2 


i.2, 


12 


12 


9 


11. 


31 


3 


5 





2.6 


4 


5 


4 


4.3 


7 


6 


2 


5. 


8 


8 


5 


7. 


32 


14 


10 


9 


11. 


9 


10 


9 


9.3 


10 


12 


6 


9.3 


18 


19 


12 


15. 


33 


3 


6 


3 


4. 


3 


4 


3 


i.i 


4 


2 


1 


2.3 


12 


13 


5 


10. 


34 


8 


9 


7 


8. 


6 


7 


3 


5.3 


8 


5 


2 


5. 


9 


12 


6 


9. 



B = scored by writer. 

C ^= scored by assistant in Psychological Department. 
F = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. 
/lv.= average of 3 scores. 



The Original Scores 



27 



OOI>.v0t^OfSC^'^l^'-<00O'*l>-O\\Or^tS^(N00-Hrt<r0f0-'-f\0O'-iTHf00000 
iOO'^00-t~~'0--H-.^\00-^0(MC<lior<lT-ifO->-HOO-+H:^cvi'rtt^POC<iOiOOt^ooro'0 
^o,■*^^^^oc^lO^O(r)CS■^^OC^qco^^IC-^■.-^^OCNCNCN^o^<^^or^•<*lOC<lrr)0^^lro^^O>0 

C^OO'^>000'>-ivOOOC>'JOOO(N<>JCsroiOioroc^Tt<OOoaC>C\iOfOOC<loot--Or<0 

••-irO'-t'-l'-IJN-r-t-rt-^i-irsI-^rH'rH-r-l .r-CP-C^-rHCNT-lT-<i-l-^CNl-(fSrO'-l'rtT-l(rsirq 

ro PO O NO VO PO <^ VD ^ O ro O O O fO fO \0 O rC fC rr, O fO V3 -O ro O fC O 
•^V-'*l>-»OCC»Oi001^t^t^iOiOt^ro^t^t>-OOiOrJ<cqiOrCrOOOt^fO-*»-i'0<rs<SI 

roOTtii^«Oc^ioior^i^t^r^-*t^t^rO'#00oC\tr!-*rovOT}Hioost^rO'^^Hi>.fOfO 
iOt^iOt^'OTtnot^OOOOOt^tO'*t^^inC\t^OO\OLO(MiOfCrCOOCO^^CSto«NCS 
iOJr^iOt^J^'*NO^NOCOOOX^OTf<00'*iOOOJ:^00'Ou-)CNiOCOrooOOO^iOCNNO(NfD 



^_^ R 



f^^Ti^(^^^0OOtN^O00'*Tt^O■'HO■^'#O'-^Tt^OCS'OO— iCOO'-iOOOiOCMO-'* 
fOCNiO-rtOOi01~~OoO-t^CN'.-irovoOs'OCO'000-^>Ou-)^0>oro^'OCNOOOT-Hro 
cs ■<* T! ■>-< T-i (r<i cs -^ csi rti '-H T-H th CO t-i -th cn cm T-^ lo ■— I Til (^o ■•-h ■rt O <>j cni i-h tJh lo 

\0i0O-^O<MOi0CSCCO00<OOOf0Oi0OOl>-00OfSv0>O'-HOOl>-'*00<O'-i 
\ONO^OOC\'*t^t^\OtO'*CNt^OOiOO\'*CNiOOOr^Ot^t— OOO-* CO Ot^Tj^ro 



m O NCO 



f/j VO fC vo NOVO >o ro ro O ro fT) NO 



t^t-'^00-<*<NONO00001^NOiONONONO00iOVONO0000TtiNOt^(Nt^t^t^CNrO'rt00^-iTt< 
t^^^tOOOTt^vOVOOOO^^^NOlOt^NONOOOlONO^-^^oONOlOt^'*^>■NOl^co^o<^^O^^Ol^) 

X^00Tl<00iONOt^000000NONOl>-t^OC\'^\ONO0\00T}<NO00CNt^0000CN'*TH00'-HrtH 

t^t^'^cciONOt^00C>0 00 00NO'*l>.NOCNNOl:^t>.00O\Tt<t^00«Sl>.C\t^C^^->-iC0^-ifC 



J-i 


. 


o 


y 


^ 


g 














^ 


^ 






f 










CO 


OJ 


8 


^ 


u 



NO 00 CN 00 VO 
CS O CN •rt CQ 



ooo\«oooNO 
00 00 es 00 NO 



• CN 



• PO PC NO NO CO 



.t^t^O0-t>-t^0O-^NOiC000OO\CSON00NO 
•t^NOOOC\0000-^NOiOt>.OOOs->-lONOONO 



■000\OOO^OC<ICONOC^I 
•OOtNNOTtlCNtOr^lOCN 

lo ■* ■.-( (^4 T-H CO T-i 



• NO CO NO NO CO NO NO CO 

NCiOCSOsCMOCOCNOO 
•>JTi<CSC\Ot0C0CN0N 



a c 



QQ 



00 On CO 00 NO 
00 O CO 00 t^ 



•C0t^C\t^l>-00-^NOvO0000OsCNC\00t^ 
•t^CNC\t^t^00i0NON0Cs000\C0OCNt^ 



•OOIOCOOCMOCOCOOO 
■t—t^-COOOOvO-^cooO 



CM NO p<l^>-^>■ 
c^NONONO■^ 

»H CN '-H 



J>- On CO Cv NO 
I^On'^OnnO 



■CO NO NOCO 



COConOnOnOCOconO 



■ OsOOOONOOONOOOOiOONOOONOOOst^'* 
•0■t^OONOOO^t^OOlOOO^ONOOO\t^co 



•C\t^t^!>JO00(N00NO 
•O-^-^OOOOOr^ON'O 

■ T-H (M 1-1 Tjl ■<-l CO 



CO CO CO NO NO 

•t^00t-~C\Oc0TiHC000 
'1>.001^00CO'*COOO 



.s.s 

•j^ 'm 'm 
& c§ c§ 



X>- On ■^ O t^ ■ On On O O 00 On 00 00 lO Ov 00 O OS O 00 NO 
t^ On CO O NO • On O O O On On On CO NO Oi On O On On !>• lO 



1>-O0t^0\0coi0-^C\ 
•t^OOCOONOrtnO-^O 



^ GOO 



cqUfeH 



W=: ;: s = a =: =: 



28 Comparative Study oj Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



TABLE IIIp. SERVANT GIRL GROUP (S) 
Original Scores 



Easy Opposites : 


























A 






B 






C 






D 






r a* i 


sc 


r w t 


sc 


r w t 


sc 


r w t 


sc 


S 1 


131 . 


. 95 


174 


17 . 


. 72 


99 


161 . 


. 69 


103 


m . 


. 95 


210 


« 2 


12 . 


. Ill 


235 


18 . 


. 65 


81 


16 . 


. 55 


85 


151 . 


. 75 


119 


« 3 


15 . 


. 52 


87 


17 . 


. 38 


52 


18 . 


. 37 


46 


18| . 


. 38 


46 


a 4 


181 . 


52 


63 


19 . 


. 68 


76 


18 . 


44 


57 


18 . 


58 


73 


« 5 


Ill . 


. 137 


291 


16 . 


. 113 


170 


14 . 


. 91 


163 


141 . 


. 87 


148 


« 6 


18 . 


. 76 


95 


19 . 


. 43 


48 


17 . 


. 65 


89 


17§ . 


. 66 


89 


« 7 


18- . 


. 65 


75 


19 . 


. 57 


64 


17 . 


. 63 


89 


19 . 


. 48 


56 


« 8 


11- . 


. 85 


180 


131 . 


. 45 


82 


15 . 


. 85 


142 


10- . 


. 63 


139 


« 9 


15- . 


77 


125 


161 . 


. 58 


85 


15 . 


. 82 


137 


13- . 


. 63 


115 


« 10 


13 . 


. 88 


169 


17 . 


. 57 


78 


121 . 


. 85 


166 


153 . 


. 85 


135 


« 11 


181 . 


. 52 


65 


18 . 


. 60 


75 


171 . 


. 57 


78 


18 . 


. 47 


61 


« 12 


18 . 


. 38 


48 


18 . 


. 36 


47 


18 . 


. 44 


58 


19 . 


. 44 


50 


" 13 


13 . 


. 55 


104 


191 . 


. 38 


41 


151 . 


. 60 


98 


171 . 


. 50 


73 


« 14 


11 . 


. 55 


119 


m . 


. 46 


96 


121 . 


. 60 


118 


7 . 


51 


96 


« 15 


14 . 


77 


138 


13 . 


. 48 


90 


13 . 


. 60 


115 


15 . 


. 54 


88 


« 16 


131 . 


. 86 


157 


13 . 


. 50 


94 


11 . 


. 60 


128 


U\ . 


. 54 


100 


« 17 


18 . 


. 88 


114 


191 . 


. 55 


61 


14 . 


. 81 


145 


17 . 


. 71 


98 


« 18 


6 . 


. 150 


393 


11 . 


. 160 


340 


141 . 


. 118 


202 


8 . 


. 86 


219 


« 19 


151 . 


. 150 


238 


16 . 


. 102 


153 


12 . 


. 115 


235 


14 . 


. 97 


174 


« 20 


161 . 


. 72 


105 


19 . 


. 52 


59 


m . 


. 63 


100 


19 . 


. 52 


59 


« 21 


10 . 


. 75 


171 


7 . 


. 104 


273 


8 . 


. 80 


200 


%h . 


. 72 


177 


« 22 


18 . 


. 215 


260 


11 . 


. 150 


188 


14 . 


. 136 


243 


16: . 


. 123 


179 


« 23 


191 . 


. 120 


130 


m . 


. 100 


120 


14 . 


. 89 


159 


m ■ 


. 59 


71 


« 24 


m . 


. 55 


60 


m . 


. 37 


45 


18J . 


40 


49 


20 . 


. 42 


42 


« 25 


121 . 


. 110 


215 


14 . 


. 95 


166 


101 . 


. 180 


397 


lU . 


. 115 


240 


« 26 


Ill . 


. 120 


255 


13 . 


. 105 


196 


191 . 


. 40 


44 


19 . 


. 45 


51 


« 27 


20 . 


. 52 


52 


18 . 


. 45 


50 


13 . 


. 102 


196 


11 . 


. 110 


238 


« 28 


161 . 


. 72 


105 


16 . 


. 73 


110 


13 . 


. 45 


84 


151 . 


. 45 


72 


« 29 


18 . 


. 61 


79 


171 . 


. 57 


76 


181 . 


57 


71 


m . 


. 42 


46 



r = number right. 
w = niimber wrong. 
t = time in seconds. 
sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. 
All fractions are dropped in scores. 
§ + = number above, 
I — = number itself. 



The Original Scores 29 













TABLE 


Illq. (GROUP S- 


-continued) 










Hard OpposnEs: 




































A 








B 








C 








D 






1 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


r 


w 


t 


sc 


S 


3 


18 


145 


826 


16 


11 


185 


856 


10 


14 


150 


748 


8 


15 


112 


581 


« 


2 


13 


15 


175 


853 


20 


11 


120 


495 


11 


14 


155 


731 


9 


14 


110 


912 


« 


3 


34 


7 


128 


391 


371 


5 


100 


274 


16 


13 


156 


689 


34 


8 


220 


689 


« 


4 


35 


4 


124 


351 


351 


7 


128 


382 


25 


9 


150 


560 


35 


4 


130 


367 


u 


5 


7 


16 


150 


799 


19 


13 


132 


579 


12 


12 


140 


660 


7 


15 


192 


1008 


u 


6 


11 


16 


199 


911 





20 


141 


846 


26 


8 


100 


361 


32 


8 


101 


341 


u 


7 


21i 


12 


202 


841 


24 


10 


136 


384 


23^ 


11 


100 


399 


22 


12 


93 


267 


u 


8 


9 


17 


205 


1076 


201 


13 


189 


610 


3 


19 


94 


448 


3 


19 


95 


452 


u 


9 


17 


13 


210 


946 


12 


15 


151 


746 


7 


16 


113 


602 


10 


15 


99 


502 


IS 


10 


10 


16 


205 


1053 


22 


11 


90 


368 


10 


14 


116 


583 


10 


16 


104 


534 


<( 


11 


36 


7 


92 


271 


26 


10 


117 


442 


14 


14 


142 


676 


26 


8 


130 


456 


« 


12 


26 


9 


99 


267 


24 


12 


71 


284 


m 


15 


71 


355 


27 


11 


75 


357 


u 


13 


11 


16 


100 


507 


13 


5 


84 


410 


3 


19 


77 


366 


6 


18 


67 


302 


u 


14 


10 


15 


100 


507 


9 


16 


74 


384 


9 


17 


75 


394 


15 


15 


64 


240 


« 


15 


14 


14 


99 


472 


27 


9 


72 


262 


17^ 


11 


73 


263 


10 


15 


85 


430 


« 


16 


11 


15 


99 


496 


9 


17 


71 


373 


5 


18 


75 


418 


10 


15 


85 


420 


(( 


17 


19^ 


11 


131 


556 


23^ 


11 


132 


532 


81 


16 


64 


273 


16 


13 


88 


392 


« 


18 


3 


19 


142 


817 


9 


17 


142 


746 





20 


64 


384 


5 


18 


90 


411 


« 


19 


6 


18 


81 


446 


19 


13 


146 


785 





20 


64 


384 


4 


17 


101 


562 


" 


20 


20 


12 


107 


555 


21 


13 


105 


446 


81 


16 


168 


879 


22 


11 


112 


456 


« 


21 





20 


105 


630 





20 


78 


468 


5 


18 


72 


401 





20 


121 


726 


« 


22 





20 


150 


900 





20 


105 


630 


3 


19 


97 


557 


6 


18 


109 


600 


« 


23 


3 


19 


162 


932 


19 


13 


78 


342 


4 


18 


78 


439 


5 


17 


87 


479 


« 


24 


24 


10 


190 


738 


40 


5 


102 


263 


20 


12 


147 


626 


32 


7 


139 


443 


tt 


25 


6 


18 


185 


1018 


6 


18 


125 


673 





20 


100 


600 





20 


88 


528 


u 


26 


45 


3 


128 


273 


32 


7 


136 


434 


361 


5 


118 


335 


43 


3 


115 


162 


u 


27 


11 


16 


121 


613 


5 


17 


178 


980 


3 


19 


162 


932 





20 


105 


630 


u 


28 


12 


16 


117 


585 


3 


19 


117 


555 


3 


19 


105 


604 


2 


19 


90 


524 



« 29 36§ 6 252 721 29| 9 160 557 39| 4 255 645 43 3 165 384 

T == score of correct and partially correct. 
K) = number wrong. 

f = time in seconds. 
5C = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. 



30 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



TABLE Illr. (GROUP S— continued) 
Memory for Unrelated Words: 





^ 




5 




c 




Z? 




r 


-w 


f 


Ui 


r 


w^ 


r w 


S 1 


3 


3 


5 




4 




2 .. 


« 2 


4 


1 


2 


3 


7 




5 1 


" 3 


9 




7 




3 




6 .. 


« 4 


5 


i 


6 




5 




5 .. 


" 5 


5 




5 


i 


5 




5 .. 


« 6 


7 


i 


7 




8 




9 .. 


« 7 


3 




7 




4 




7 .. 


« 8 


4 


"i 


2 


2 


5 




5 .. 


« 9 


6 




8 




5 




5 .. 


« 10 


6 




6 




6 




6 .. 


« 11 


8 




7 




4 




7 .. 


« 12 


5 




5 




6 




5 1 


« 13 


6 




4 


1 


4 




5 1 


« 14 


4 




5 


1 


5 




5 .. 


« 15 


4 




5 




5 




3 1 


" 16 


4 




5 




7 




3 .. 


« 17 


7 




6 




4 




6 .. 


« 18 


4 




5 




5 




4 2 


" 19 


5 




5 




5 




3 2 


« 20 


7 


i 


6 




7 




8 .. 


« 21 


4 




6 




3 




5 .. 


« 22 


4 




1 




3 




4 .. 


« 23 


6 




4 


i 


5 




5 .. 


" 24 


6 




5 




5 




5 .. 


« 25 


3 




4 




6 




3 .. 


« 26 


8 




5 


\ 


6 




5 .. 


« 27 


4 




4 


\ 


4 




4 .. 


« 28 


9 




9 




9 




8 1 


« 29 


7 




5 




7 




6 .. 



r = number remembered, that are right. 
w = number added, not on list. 



The Original Scores 31 



TABLE Ills. (GROUP S— continued) 
Memory, Logical Passages: 









4 








B 








C 








D 






B 


C 


i? 


Av. 


B 


C 


i^ 


Av. 


5 


C 


F 


^t'. 


B 


C 


F 


^z;. 


1 


2 


2 


1 


1.6 


2 


2 





1.3 


1 


4 





1.6 


2 


6 


1 


3. 


2 


3 


3 


1 


2.3 


2 


2 





1.3 





2 





.6 





2 





.6 


3 


7 


5 


1 


4.3 


6 


6 


2 


4.6 


5 


4 


5 


4.6 


6 


8 


7 


7. 


4 


9 


9 


6 


8. 


4 


4 


2 


3.3 


9 


7 


4 


6.6 


16 


16 


10 


12. 


5 


1 


1 





.6 


6 


4 


4 


4.6 


5 


5 


2 


4. 


10 


8 


5 


7.6 


6 


11 


12 


11 


11.3 


10 


8 


5 


7.6 


12 


6 


11 


9.6 


20 


19 


10 


16.3 


7 


6 


8 


7 


7. 


7 


8 


5 


6.6 


4 


3 


2 


3. 


8 


9 


5 


7.3 


8 


2 


3 





1.6 











0. 


7 


8 


2 


5.6 


7 


7 


2 


5.3 


9 


10 


8 


5 


7.6 


8 


7 


3 


6. 


6 


4 


2 


4. 


5 


5 


2 


4. 


10 


7 


6 


3 


5.3 


3 


3 


1 


2.3 


2 


2 


3 


2.3 


5 


6 


2 


4.3 


11 


6 


6 


3 


5. 


9 


6 


4 


6.3 


5 


5 


2 


4. 


10 


12 


5 


9. 


12 


11 


9 


5 


8.3 


10 


8 


5 


7.6 


12 


9 


7 


9.3 


12 


13 


5 


10. 


13 




3 


1 


1.6 





1 





.3 


5 


6 


2 


4.3 


6 


6 


4 


5.3 


14 


3 


4 





2.3 


4 


6 


2 


4. 


2 


2 





1.3 


2 


5 


2 


3. 


15 


2 


2 





1.3 


4 


3 


3 


3.3 


2 


3 


1 


2. 


6 


7 


5 


6. 


16 


1 


2 





1. 


4 


4 


3 


3.6 


3 


3 





2. 


4 


4 


5 


4.3 



17 6 3 2 3.6 1 5 2 2.6 8 4 5 5.6 5 7 2 4.6 

18 2 1 2 1.6 1 2 2 1.6 0. 12 3 2. 

19 2 1 1 1.3 1 2 1. 0. 0000. 

20 4 5 2 3.6 8 7 5 6.6 8 6 3 5.6 10 9 4 7.6 



« 21 


2 


2 


1 


1.6 


2 


1 


2 


1.6 


1 


2 


1 


1.6 


5 


6 


4 


5. 


« 22 











0. 











0. 











0. 





1 





.6 


« 23 


4 


5 


2 


3.6 


5 


3 


4 


4. 


3 


3 


3 


3. 


8 


9 


7 


8. 


« 24 


4 


5 


2 


3.6 


5 


3 


2 


3.3 


4 


5 


2 


3.6 


15 


16 


9 


13.3 


« 25 











0. 


1 


1 





.6 


2 


1 


1 


1.3 


1 


1 


1 


1. 


« 26 


2 


4 


2 


2.6 


6 


5 


3 


4.6 


10 


13 


12 


11.6 


10 


10 


7 


9. 


« 27 











0. 





2 





.6 











0. 


4 


5 


4 


4.3 


« 28 


10 


10 


7 


9. 


9 


8 


4 


7. 


8 


7 


2 


5.6 


18 


14 


11 


14.3 



29 7 7 5 6.3 5 4 2 3.6 5 5 2 4. 10 12 10 10.6 

B = scored by writer. 

C = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. 
F = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. 
.4 z^.= average of 3 scores. 



32 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



'0\OCNvOO'-iV3l-00O'-"*rC'*OOOr^O00vOfnOO00O>O 
i^H.rHiOTl<\Ot~-t^t^OCN'<*OM~~Cs"OtOLO>ot-~rO'.-iO\OOOOOiO 

ifoioO'-iooovooopO'^csioeNOOO^Hiotoos^Hoooooo 

.rrjvO^SONrOOaO^OPOCNrOOvOONOOOOOO-^OMr^IOt^OOOM^f^ 

I CN CS ■^ ,-1 .-I T-l .^ CN •rH T-l tH ,r-l i-H t-H ,-1 ,-1 1-1 ,-( CN CS 1-1 »-l ^H 






pq"^ 



; fe, 



f<^ VO \0 VO \0 f*) f*5 vO O fO "Of) 



OO^fO >o to i-< po es CM ro f*5 'H es 1-H o O O ro cs o c^j •<* lo 00 »oio 
0<of^OvO'*'-nv5esrcese>J'Hc*5<NOOOcseMOcsrciot^i-iio>o 

OOt^>Oi-it^>OfO'^rCPr)«OtOi-<rCHOOOiOCNOrC^O»OOsO"OiO 
OOt^r^»-<t^vO'-iro«sesro<r>'-iCS'-iOOOf<^CNOCSrO>0 00»-i\OiO 



00000\vOCNr<iOCNi-HiororO'-<'^'^fOioO\0>roO\'«*i'*vOJ--rvlOfO 

OO'*CNOJOOrC-^O»-H"«+i00i0O00t^«3OCN00i-<J^C<lvOt^00iC'^ 
OOOOCSi-U^t^<~00\OOM^OOOOOO\0\0\0^^'*0»-iO<^-*<MOO'-iOO 



i 



\0 vO \0 VO 



vo\0 co^rc 



VO CO O vo vo 



O O O*^ revolt CNCNCNf^-^THCNfO^rO CO CN fries O'*lO'*0\f0-*00 

oot^t~-iovooocso(NfOfOcsfOfoesfr!fcescMCMO'*<3'*0\CMiooo 

OOt^t^fOt^OOCNrorOcrjrJHCNfrjfO'-H'^fOCNfOCNO'OiO'^OfCOOO 

OtoavC>00^00\'-i<N^OOOOCSOOOOOCOvOiOOOVOOOOOO'^ 
V0CNi-(-rH000N00t^'-i00r^c<7OC7\M:>'Ot^-*M<Ov\OiOiOO-*ir0iO00O 
■^ CN ^H CN lo CN CM cs rn ■■-I CN »-i i-H csi CN Tji •^ ro cs ■<* CN cTi ro »H <v> ,-1 



c/3 (A 

o -^ 

'"c a 

o <u -^ 

>S8 



CO \o O CO ^ *0 VO VO VO vO CO O 



PO ^O fC fO fO \o « 



O 00 O T-t lO 00 CS re »-H PO »0 '^ Ti< CO C^J lO '-H TH fO 1-1 O ^ >o PO 0\ t^t^ 

OOCOOrO>OONCNCOrHrOTt<TjHlCCOCO"0'r-l»-ICOrHO'!j<ri<COO\0 00 00 

0'-iooi>.r-iioooto-*cNfO":)«o-*Tt<cN\Oi-iT-ico»-<0'*>ocoO\Ooooo 

OOOOt^T-iOO\co-<*CNCOVDiOCOCO<N^Oi-ii-i'^i-iOiOJ^rJ<0'>-<t^t^ 



fNVD»-iCNrort<0\coC\Ot^VDOl^>OOCOOOrtirti(MU-)CN>00'*0'*'* 

l>.iOiO<>4OV0OTt<i-(Oi0t-~v0'^000S'-iOC0'*(M»-(VO0000r000'*iO\ 

<3 1-1 1-1 CN 1-4 CO '-I CO rO CN <M 1-1 CN CN LO CO CN Tj* CO ■* 1-1 •^ 1-1 "0 »-< 

OiOOOCSlOCOOO<MOOlOOOOir)COOCNlOCNCNCNO'-l<>)OOOOt^ 
LOOOOOiOt^covOiOiOiOCOOOOOOLOt— iO»DO\0\OOrOrt<C\OCA<0 



•^^ 






II 
ll 

•s-s 



coco \0 CO V3 CO CO CO 



coco \0 »0 CO V3 vO V3 



i-li-t00a\OO\00C0VO'<*rti00iOCN'OCN00CNT-i'OTHOCN*^iOl^i-it^t^ 
CSi-IOOO\OOOOcotoiO>000»OCN'0»-iOOC-gi-ivo»HOIMOOiO*^<Nt^t^ 

«Mi-(00OvOO\00COt^»OTti0NO<NtOCN00i-Hi-i"Oi-iOC0 00»O00»-<t^00 

i-iT-H00OvOO\OvC0O-^'^00'OC0OC000C0»-it>-CNOC0t^"O00CMt^00 



& rt ca 




'S'S'2 



CQ^fe, 



assess 



3«38«33333333 



2. FINAL SCORES 



TABLE IVa. GROUP C 







Final Scores 
















Unrelated 






Easy 


Hard 


Logical 


Memory 


Ebbinghaus 




Opposites 


Opposites 


Memory 


Correct 


Errors 


Test 


1... 


58 


388 


12.9 


31 


4 


102 


2... 


47 


180 


13.8 


31 


2 


133 


3... 


60 


263 


8.7 


31 


1 


178 


4... 


55 


267 


12.6 


28 




122 


5... 


46 


328 


10.2 


30 


i 


244 


6... 


43 


278 


15. 


40 




100 


7... 


47 


367 


8.5 


27 


'i 


102 


8... 


46 


128 


15.6 


39 


2 


59 


9... 


63 


231 


13.2 


33 


1 


67 


10... 


41 


163 


18.2 


30 


1 


75 


11... 


45 


302 


11.8 


33 


3 


106 


12... 


58 


295 


13.6 


40 


1 


142 


13... 


67 


317 


8.5 


33 


1 


97 


14... 


30 


152 


10.7 


29 




94 


15... 


41 


190 


15.8 


35 




71 


16... 


49 


272 


10.4 


32 




107 


17... 


65 


270 


14.6 


40 


'i 


135 


18... 


49 


221 


14.1 


39 


3 


104 


19... 


47 


162 


16.8 ' 


40 


2 


69 


20... 


51 


249 


14.5 


35 


3 


79 


21... 


38 


147 


15.5 


45 


1 


125 


22... 


43 


165 


14.7 


27 


3 


61 


23... 


43 


180 


11.4 


36 


2 


99 


24... 


47 


312 


10.2 


27 


1 


148 


25... 


38 


136 


10.3 


33 




93 


26.... 


45 


192 


15.8 


31 


i 


65 


27.... 


54 


135 


12.7 


31 


3 


78 


28.... 


38 


272 


15.6 


41 


1 


98 


29.... 


51 


317 


13.1 


31 




97 


30.... 


49 


204 


18.5 


37 


'i 


66 


31.... 


47 


179 


8.2 


31 


2 


89 


32.... 


60 


204 


10.9 


36 




103 


33.... 


43 


135 


15.5 


30 


i 


88 


34.... 


45 


255 


9. 


24 


4 


107 


35.... 


51 


229 


7.6 


37 


2 


129 


36.... 


40 


155 


16.7 


33 


3 


65 



S3 



34 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



TABLE IVb. GROUP D 







Final Scores 
















Unrelated 






Easy 


Hard 


Logical 


Memory 


Ebbinghaus 




Opposites 


Opposites 


Memory 


Correct 


Errors 


Test 


D 1... 


161 


499 


2.5 


20 


2 


382 


" 2... 


79 


513 


6.2 


23 


2 


292 


" 3... 


56 


723 


7.7 


29 


2 


204 


" 4... 


53 


524 


7.4 


31 




178 


« 5... 


125 


426 


7.3 


32 


3 


242 


" 6... 


123 


883 


5.3 


19 




234 


" 7... 


222 


795 


3.9 


15 


4 


436 


« 8... 


146 


569 


3.7 


35 


4 


443 


" 9... 


165 


453 


2.8 


17 


2 


313 


« 10... 


120 


422 


2.6 


29 


3 


314 


« 11... 


83 


622 


3.5 


18 


8 


350 


" 12... 


114 


326 


4.4 


29 


4 


184 


« 13... 


99 


563 


7.5 


26 


1 


254 


« 14... 


73 


592 


5.7 


25 


6 


173 


" 15... 


99 


590 


5.1 


22 


2 


285 


" 16... 


301 


715 


2.9 


24 


4 


475 


" 17... 


97 


686 


6.4 


31 


5 


398 


« 18... 


72 


560 


10.8 


26 


9 


138 


« 19... 


154 


580 


2.4 


20 


6 


724 


« 20... 


82 


532 


3.6 


21 


3 


476 


« 21... 


138 


414 


4.5 


33 


4 


240 


« 22... 


135 


869 


3.4 


21 


1 


583 


« 23... 


74 


358 


14.6 


26 


1 


78 


« 24... 


86 


722 


6.7 


18 


12 


278 


" 25... 


211 


433 


1.8 


10 


12 


840 


« 26... 


297 


571 


2.0 


17 


2 


560 


" 27... 


65 


455 


5.0 


25 




189 


« 28... 


59 


466 


10.5 


30 


'i 


131 


« 29... 


71 


403 


3.8 


22 




294 


« 30... 


120 


371 


6.2 


17 


16 


118 



The Final Scores 



35 



TABLE IVc. GROUP E 







Final Scores 
















Unrelated 






Easy 


Hard 


Logical 


Memory 


Ebbinghaus 




Opposites 


Opposites 


Memory 


Correct 


Errors 


Test 


E 1... 


80 


465 


6.1 


38 




225 


« 2... 


63 


631 


8.4 


25 




292 


" 3... 


133 


1079 


6.6 


25 




346 


" 4... 


56 


491 


4.4 


29 




151 


" 5... 


70 


526 


6.8 


25 




158 


" 6... 


59 


543 


8.7 


31 




413 


" 7... 


63 


801 


5.2 


34 




446 


« 8... 


73 


476 


4.1 


32 




146 


" 9... 


40 


154 


14.3 


28 




99 


" 10... 


41 


218 


9.9 


33 


4 


96 


" 11... 


80 


531 


8.8 


23 


2 


224 


" 12... 


57 


679 


8.8 


28 


2 


190 


" 13... 


133 


606 


5.4 


38 




174 


" 14... 


68 


323 


7.8 


32 




155 


« 15... 


85 


500 


3.1 


38 




177 


« 16... 


46 


344 


7.1 


32 




94 


« 17... 


68 


859 


8.1 


33 




255 


" 18... 


44 


379 


12.8 


32 




118 


« 19... 


67 


400 


5.9 


29 




162 


"20... 


74 


209 


11.0 


36 




144 


" 21 . . . 


61 


407 


10.1 


34 




276 


« 22... 


153 


590 


3.3 


25 




159 


« 23... 


87 


699 


6.7 


34 




455 


" 24... 


55 


420 


9.3 


28 




131 


« 25... 


117 


782 


5.2 


26 




337 


"26... 


86 


724 


4.7 


30 




379 


« 27... 


54 


326 


11.5 


41 




126 


« 28... 


80 


424 


7.2 


23 


17 


172 


« 29... 


92 


827 


3.8 


35 




572 


« 30... 


98 


663 


6.9 


36 




207 


« 31... 


111 


630 


4.7 


34 




333 


"32... 


57 


227 


11.2 


37 


11 


145 


"33... 


137 


669 


7.4 


21 




527 


« 34... 


151 


654 


6.8 


23 




533 



36 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



TABLE IVd. GROUP S 







Fin 


\L Scores 
















Unrelated 






Easy 


Hard 


Logical 


Memory 


Ebbinghaus 




Opposites 


Opposites 


Memory 


Correct 


Errors 


Test 


S 1... 


146 


753 


1.9 


14 


5 


654 


" 2... 


130 


748 


1.2 


18 


6 


510 


" 3 . . . 


58 


511 


5.1 


25 


1 


222 


" 4... 


67 


415 


7.5 


21 


1 


283 


" 5... 


193 


761 


4.2 


20 


1 


373 


" 6... 


80 


615 


11.2 


31 


1 


105 


" 7 . . . 


71 


473 


6.0 


21 




159 


" 8... 


136 


646 


3.1 


16 


6 


315 


" 9... 


115 


699 


5.4 


24 




229 


« 10... 


137 


634 


3.6 


24 


i 


305 


" 11... 


70 


461 


6.1 


26 


1 


443 


" 12... 


51 


316 


8.8 


21 


1 


180 


" 13... 


79 


399 


2.9 


19 


2 


279 


" 14... 


107 


381 


2.7 


19 


1 


240 


" 15... 


108 


357 


3.2 


17 


1 


210 


" 16... 


120 


427 


2.7 


19 




288 


" 17... 


104 


438 


4.1 


23 


'2 


392 


" 18... 


288 


589 


1.3 


18 


2 


525 


" 19... 


200 


544 


.6 


18 


2 


505 


" 20... 


81 


584 


6.1 


28 


1 


345 


" 21... 


205 


556 


2.5 


18 




319 


" 22 . . . 


217 


672 


.2 


12 




399 


" 23 . . . 


120 


548 


4.7 


20 


i 


314 


« 24... 


49 


517 


6. 


21 


2 


287 


" 25 . . . 


254 


705 


.7 


16 


1 


391 


" 26... 


136 


301 


7. 


24 




168 


" 27... 


134 


789 


1.3 


16 


i 


493 


« 28... 


43 


567 


9. 


35 


1 


192 


« 29... 


68 


577 


6.1 


25 




141 



Comparison of Final Scores 



37 



H 



Q 



5 S 

c^ S 

O 

i-i o m 

Q I 

o ?^ 

O W CO 

^ Q S 

^ g ^« 

o ^ ^o 
o p 

S § I 

:^ ^ s 

1-^ h3 .^ 



lO tH On OO O CN O CN OS O OS fO r- 00 ID Tj< lO CMO ro ■^ CN Os t*5 f^ »0 O »0 ■* 

O •* lO VO 00 Ov ■^ CNtM <* t-~ 00 00 OO O T-^ •rH -rt •*! t^ 0\ ON On '^ ON O ■^ CS »0 

T-^ T^ T-H T-H »-l ■.-I CN ITS CS r<l Cs) CS CN CN CO ^0 CO ^ <r> CO C^ <-0 ro Tt* "* lO li-J lO \o 

^NO0N00\0T-f^iONO'^iO000N<M<NrJ<J>.Ot^-^i0»O\0(MC0lr^'O0\C0V0i0t^<N0CS 

0\ONO\-'-icscOTtH-*^'^iOiOiO\Ot-~t^t^O\OCN(NiOt^ONCOCO'*J:^'-H-Tt<iOCMcot^ 

•rt,-HTHT-H^--l^-H^-^T-^T-H•^r-HTHT-^■rt»-^<^^CSCNtNCNCNcr)COCoco•*'*■^t^lOu^lO 

0000^00c<500^0N'r}<r}<O(M^00iO(M'*C0-*OCN00\OC0>ONOOr0'*O • • • • 

t^ -rt CO CO t~- t^ 00 OO O CO ■* ^ lO <-^ 00 On 0\ T-i ■^ lO CO 0\ CO Tfi *^ J>- NO 00 CN -^ • • • • 

tH T-( ■,-( T-( ,-1 -rt •tH C<1 (M Csl CN (N CS CS C<I CN CO CO CO CO CO -^ ■* ■* ^ lO lO t^ OO . . . . 



CO 



oq O 00 ii-> O '-('Hr-iOO^T-Hr^ CM >rH NO CN'-HOst^t^iO On CO CO CNl^NO(N 
•rHOsOOt^-t^NO'ONONONOiOiOTti-^TjHcococoCNrqCNCN'-iTH'rHT-i 



COOOlOC<IO»HOSCOOOOOt^-*-rHOO-<#CNTHONOOOO-t^sO'r-lON>*CNCNr^t^^r-IOOCO-'-l 
-*'cvi,-<,-Hv-(OONON00000000C0t-^~O.t^NONO\ONONONOiOiOiOiO^'*^^C0C0C0 

00 O -^ »0 NO 00 On ^ "O NO 1>- 00 On "* lO O 1-H CO *^ (M C<l •* t^ CO ^ lO t^ »0 00 NO . - • ■ 



•^CSCNICNCNtNCNCOCOCOCOCOCO- 



iiO»ONONONO\Ot^t^t^t^OOrt< 



Nocsu:>iot^OcscNPOTj<t^ONT}Hoo'OJ>.ON-»-icNjNooO'»HioNot--ototONONoooooi>.oocsi>r> 

t^OOOOOOCOONOOOOOO-'-HT-KNCNICNCOCococOrif'^-^^LoiOiOiOiOiOioNOvOOOOO 



•^ NO i>- T-H On »0 J>- 00 T-i CO ■^ t^ •<# 00 NO t- i^ -* 0\ lO ■* NO <M OMO 00 CO -^ On 

O tH lO 00 On -"-I CN CO NO t^ ■<— I ■'-H ■^ ■* >0 NO t^ OO 00 1— I CO Tti t^ On O Tft lO NO 00 

CO CO CO CO CO '^ ^ >* •* '^i >^ IC »0 lO lO lO lO lO LO NO NO NO NO NO t^ t^ t^ t- 1^ 

■rti On 00 1:^ CO NO Tfi On O t-~ O •* lO NO T— I O NO 1— I CO O NO O '-< "^ CO On On On -^ CS th t^ On On • • 
lO O T-( cs oq CN -^ t^ O O CS CM NO 1>- On O Csl CO -^ti ON O CO CO lO NO NO t^ On CN 00 O CN lO t^ - • 
■i-H CS CN CNI CO CO CO CO '^ -* rt< T^H -^ -5^1 T^ LO lo lO lO lO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO t^ t^ CO 00 00 O • • 

NO 00 T-i CO Tt< CNI NO CO CO <0 NO ON CO ■* CN| O CO On ■<-( O O CN CS ^ >0 CM CO lO ON CO 

CN lO t^ O -rH CN CN CO lO lO NO ON ■.-I CnI CO NO NO NO t^ 00 ON ON CSI CO ■r-l CN CS O NO OO 

CO CO CO ^ -* ■* •* >* ■^ '^ ■* -^ lo Lo lo lo lo u-j lo lo lo lo NO NO *- 1-- 1^ t^ 00 00 

ooir>iONOt^cNtocscoioONOOOcsiTfi-NfH-^ON'--iONiocoi^O<NrNiooiocNj(r<!t--f^oot^oo 

CNC0C0C0^'Oi0NONONO-t^0C000N0NOOcsCNC0^i0NONO*^t^r^X>-ONO'-H-'-i'^CSINO00 

■rtT-H-^rH7-^THT-H-rt.,-HT--<-.-l-rHr-lT--lTHCS(>qCNCNlCNCSCNlCSICNlCS|CSCNCNCN|COCOCOCOCOCOCO 









•^^^ 

^ G « 

o G^ 



•^-^ 



^1 



•-J p< 

8 ^^ 



ONT-(001:^00O'-HOvO-^c0'^J>-00iOOOO^NONOlr~NOC0OiOl>-'*00 
^iOiONONOt~t^l:^OOOOONOOO'-iCN!>4cococococo^C3NOO'-i>000 

r-l'.-lT-H'rH'r-lT-H.r-l'rti-fT-li-lT-HT-fCMCSCSCNCN 



cONOONiOTH(NCO-^ON(MCONOJ>-ONON'*OOcoiOiOOONO'*'-iiO'^CNt~-^ 

lOlOlONOt-J>.I>.t^I>-OOOOOOONONO\'^CNlCNlCN<rNICOCO-*lONONO»-l(MONO 
T-l'^i-l'r-l'^T-lT-lTH.i-lT-lTHCNCNCNCO 



•^-S 



^g 



So* 

oo 

WW 



i-H CS CO tJ< lO NO 1 



iCNCO-^iONOI^OOOnO' 



PART III 

RESULTS 

(1) Intelligence Tests 

I. EASY OPPOSITES TEST 

Comparing now the results attained by the four groups on 
this test, we have the facts of Table VI. 

TABLE Via 

Easy Opposites n= num- 

ber of 

COMPARISON OF THE FOUR GROUPS caseS 

Barnard College (C) Group n = 36 

Delinquent (D) Group n = 30 

Evening Settlement House (E) Group n = 34 

Servant girl (S) Group n = 29 

COMPARISON WITH C GROUP 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 0% 
" " " « « « « 25%ile " « " = S.d,% 

" " " " « « « 10%ile « « « =10% 

%ofE " « « « median" " " =12% (.118) 

" « " « " « « 25%ile " « " =15% (.147) 

" " " « " « " 10%ile « « " = 29% (.294) 

% of S « " « " median " " « =0% 

" " " « " « « 25%ile « " " = 7%, (.069) 

" « " " « « " 10%ile « " « = 10% (.103) 

COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 16f % 
« « " " " " " 25%ile " " " =43^% 

" " « « « « « 10%ile " " " =661% 

23J% of D Group were worse than the poorest of the E Group 
12% of E Group were better than the best of the D Group 

COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 53J% 
« " « « « « « 25%ile " « " =93% 

« " « « « « « 10%ile « " « =90% 

6|% of D Group were worse than the poorest of the S Group. 
7% of S Group were better than the best of the D Group, 

That is, if we compare Groups C and D, we find that no 
member of Group D reached the median score of Group C and 
38 



Results 39 

that S..3%, or 1 person, in Group D, did as well on this test as 
the lowest 25% of the College Group, whereas 10% of Group D 
reached or exceeded the score obtained by the poorest 10% of 
Group C. 

That members of Group E compare more favorably with Group 
C is seen by their record, for 12% of them reach or exceed the 
median of Group C, as well as by the number reaching or exceed- 
ing the 25 percentile and the 10 percentile. 

Thus we see that Group C succeeds far better on this test 
than the other groups, that the overlapping of Groups and D 
is slight and the test differentiates the two groups quite well, 
but the difference between the two is not much greater than 
that between Groups C and S, the only distinction being that 
one more member of Group S reaches the 25 percentile than in 
Group D, whereas Group E lies between the others. 

Though 22^% of Group D have results poorer than the 
poorest record in Group E, and 12% of Group E are better than 
the best of Group D, yet the overlapping is considerable. More 
significant, however, is the great overlapping in Groups D and S; 
here, though, the upper and lower limits are more favorable for 
Group S, yet Group D on the whole does quite as well, for 
53^% reach or exceed 50% of the members of Group S and 93% 
reach or exceed the record of 75% of Group S. 

The groups as a whole are fairly comparable, and 28 out of 
30 of our delinquent girls do no worse than some subject in 
Group S. 

II. HARD OPPOSITES TESTS 

The facts are shown in Table VIb. This test differentiates 
our groups somewhat better than the former; the difference 
between Group C and the three other groups is accentuated 
here, yet the general relationships remain much the same. 
Both Groups D and S are much lower in attainment than Group 
C and Group E approaches nearer the same standing. 

But, on the other hand, the overlapping of Groups D and E 
is much greater here than in the Easy Opposites Tests. The 
members of Group E are less able to cope with this and do not 
succeed much better, in fact no better, than Group D, for while 
the median falls higher the 25 and 10 percentiles fall sHghtly 
lower. Though 15% of Group E surpass the best record 



40 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

TABLE VIb 
Hard Opposites 
comparison of the four groups 
% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 0% 
" 25%ile " " " = 0% 



%ofE 

ti U II 

u u a 

%of S 



10%ile « " " = 3h' 

median " " " =9% (.088) 

25%ile « « " =12% (.118) 

10%ile " " " =15% (.148) 

median " « " = 0% 

25%ile " " " = 0% 

10%ile « « " = 77o (-069) 



COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 46t% 
" " " « " " « 25%ile « « " =76t% 

« « " « « « « 10%ile " " « =93§% 

0% of D Group were worse than the poorest of the E Group. 
3% of E Group were worse than the poorest of the D Group (.034). 
15% of E Group were better than the best of the D Group (.148). 

COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 50% 
" « " « " « " 25%ile " « « =761% 

« « « « « « « 10%ile « " « =90% 

10% of D Group were worse than the poorest of the S Group. 
7% of S Group were better than the best of the D Group. 

attained by any one in Group D, yet 3% of that same group do 
worse than the poorest record obtained in the deHnquent group. 
The close paralleHsm of Groups D and S is striking; the 
groups almost overlap each other exactly, though the upper 
limit reached by S is better and the lower is worse in the D 
group. 

III. MEMORY OF WORDS TEST 

The facts are shown in Tables Vic and VId. The results 
here are much more favorable for Group D ; the lines of demar- 
cation between the groups here are fainter. The record for 
Group D is far below that of Group C, and even below Group E, 
but it is better than for Group S. 

If we notice the errors made as given in the table below, we 
find many more in Group D. These represent words given 
that did not appear in the lists. Just what this signifies, it is 
rather difficult to say. Possibly it shows less mental control 
on the part of Group D; associations evoked are not eHmin- 
ated but given as though bona fide memory items. 



Results 



41 



TABLE Vic 
Memory for Unrelated Words 



COMPARISON OF FOUR GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group ■ 
« " « « « « « 25%ile « " " 



%ofE 



%of S 



10%ile « « 

median " " 

25%ile « " 

10%ile " " 

median " " 

25%ile " « 

10%ile " « 



61% 
20% 
30% 

^41% (.411) 
: 59% (.588) 
^74% (.735) 

^ 31% (.034) 
^ 7% (.069) 
10% (.103) 



COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 10% 
« « « « « « « 25%ile " " « =30% 

« « « « « « « 10%ile " " « =53% 

33|% of D Group were worse than poorest of E Group. 
21% of E Group were better than best of D Group (.206). 

COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 66f % 
« « " « « « « 25%ile « « « =83 Wo 

a a « « « « « 10%ile « " « =931% 

3|% of D Group were worse than poorest of S Group. 
0% of S Group were better than best of D Group. 







TABLE VId 








Comparison 


of Groups 








ERRORS IN unrelated MEMORY TEST 








(Based on final score) 






Group C 


Group D 


Group E 


Group S 


No. of 


No. of 




No. of 


No. of 




Errors Freq. 


Errors 


Freq. 


Errors Freq. 


Errors 


Freq. 


1 11 


1 


3 


1 6 


1 


15 


2 8 


2 


7 


2 7 


2 


6 


3 7 


3 


3 


3 4 


3 


1 


4 2 


4 


5 


4 6 


5 


1 




5 


1 


5 1 


6 


1 




6 


2 


7 1 








8 


1 


9 1 








9 


1 


11 1 








12 


2 


17 1 








16 


1 








Av. C= .28 


Av. D 


= 2.2 


Av. E = 1.7 


Av. S 


= .5 


Mode =1 


Mode 


= 2 


Mode =2 


Mode 


= 1 


Med. =2 


Med. 


= 4 


Med. =3 


Med. 


= 2 



42 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

IV. MEMORY OF PASSAGES TEST 

The facts are shown in Table Vie. This test proves much 
more difficult than the Memory of Words Test; for here again 
the overlapping is slight but the relations between the different 
groups remain about the same. On the whole, Group D proves 
to be quite a little better than Group S, particularly as regards 
the lower 50% of the group. 

TABLE Vie 
Memory — Logical Passages 

comparison of groups c and d 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 3?% 
" « " « " " « 25%ile " " " =10% 

« « « « « « « 10%ile " " " =10% 

" " " " " " " poorest in " " = 13§% 

% of E « « « " median of " " =3% (2}^) 

« " « « « « " 25%ile " « " =15%(14H) 

« " " « " " « 10%ile " " " =33% (32H) 

« " « " « « " poorest in" " =41%(41xV) 

% of S " « « « median of " « =0% 

" « " « « " « 25%ile « « « = 3% ( 3M) 

« « " " « « " 10%ile « « « = 10% (lOil) 

« « « « « " " poorest in « « = 10% (10i§) 

COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 23§% 
« « « u « « « 25%ile « « « =43^% 

« « « « « « « 10%ile « « " =60% 

" " " " " " " poorest in " " = 76f % 

COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 56f % 
" « " « " " « 25%ile " " " =90% 

« a u u « « « 10%ile « " " =100% 



V. COMPLETION TEST 

The facts are shown in Table Vlf. We find this test also 
difficult for the three groups, D, E and S. Though E does better 
than D measured by the standard as set by Group C, yet the 
difference is not so great, and compared with each other there 
is no great disparity shown, especially as regards the lower half 
of each group. Here again we find the ability of the members 
of Groups D and S fairly comparable. 



Results 43 

TABLE Vlf 
Ebbinghaus Completion Test 

comparison of groups c and d 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 3|% 

25%ile " " « = 61% 
10%ile « " « -=13|% 
" " " poorest in " « =60% 



%ofE 



%of S 



median of " " = 6% ( 5^f) 

25%ile « " « = 9% ( m) 

10%ile " " " = 24% (23xV) 

poorest in " « =71% (70i4) 

median of " " =0% 

25%ile " " « = 3% ( 3M) 

10%ile " " « -= 3% ( 3M) 



COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 20% 
« « « « « « « 25%ile « " « =631% 

« « « « « « « io%ile " " « =861% 

" " " " c " " poorest in " " =90% 

COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS 

% of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 56f % 

« " " " " " « 25%ile " " « =70% 

« " « « « « « I0%ile " " « =86-1% 

" " " " " " " poorest in " " = 93J% 

" " " " better than best " " " = 3^% 

If, then, we summarize the conditions regarding the intel- 
lectual status of the four groups as measured by these five 
tests, we find, as one would expect, that Group C excels'by far 
the other groups; Group E ranks next in ability, and Groups D 
and S fall last. While in no test does Group D equal the record 
of Group E, yet in the Completion Test, which proved to be 
most difficult for Group E, the gap between is the slightest. 

But, what is more to the point, we find that Group D not 
only proves as capable as Group S, but in some instances excels 
that group. This is true for the Easy Opposites, the Memory 
of Words (if we take into account only correct replies) and 
Memory of Passages ; while in the two remaining tests the groups 
fall almost parallel. 

Thus, though our delinquent girls are not as capable as their 
sisters, many of them from congested districts, who in other 
ways are proving themselves ambitious, yet they are no less 
equipped intellectually than others who are earning a livelihood 



44 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

and caring for themselves without coming in conflict with the 
law at least. Whatever their mental status might be, measured 
by other means, the fact remains that there is no necessary 
correlation between their immoral or criminal tendencies and 
their intellectual ability and that others no more endowed than 
they are fighting life's battles without manifesting the same 
immoral or criminal tendencies. 



(2) The Fernald Ethical Discrimination Test 
The scale of deeds used by Fernald is as follows : 

E. To take two or three apples from another man's orchard. 

P. To take a cent from a blind man's cup. 

I. To break windows for fun. 

C. To throw hot water on a cat or in any way to cause it to 
suffer needlessly. 

A. To break into a building to rob it. 

N. To take money as " graft " or " rake off " when you are a 
city or government official. 

T. To try to kill yourself. 

H. To ruin a nice girl and then leave her. 

U. To set fire to a house with people in it. 

S. To shoot to kill a man who runs away when you try to 
rob him. 

Just what value the Ethical Discrimination Test has as an 
evidence of intellect pertaining to moral elements involved in 
various situations, is doubtful. It is difficult, in the first place, 
to know how seriously the problems in this test are weighed, 
how much real decision it represents. It is not, of course, a 
matter of native ability but to a large extent is the product of 
environmental conditions. Aside from that, can one judge of 
the subjects' present attitude toward the various misdemeanors 
regardless of why and how they have arrived at this point of 
view ? Furthermore, in this study there is an added drawback; 
the deeds as here stated were planned to be used in testing boys 
and the situations therefore are not the most satisfactory as 
material to be used with girls. Yet the experiment was done 
for whatever it might reveal. The results are given in Table VII. 



Results 



45 






o 


• 


'^ 




• 






CO 


CO 


00 


eg 


Ol 


• 


-* 


-H 








t- 


CO 


LO 


eg 


00 


• 


-H 


CO 




"^ 


eg 


^ 


w 


CO 


CO 


t> 


^ 


^ 


^ 


w 


CO 






eg 


■* 


eg 


ts 


CO 


CO 


^ 


^ 


eg 


^ 


r-l 


rH 




CO 


w 


eg 


eg 


^ 


o 


- 


■«< 




^ 




eg 


■>^ 


^ 


CO 


^ 


•H 


t> 


M 


eg 




eg 


eg 


CO 


CO 


eg 


r^ 


CO 


lO 


Tji 


eg 


rH 




^ 


N 


•* 


CM 


(fl 


-- 


^ 


"* 


eg 






eg 


- 


CO 




^ 


^ 


eg 


Tf 


■^ 


rH 






o 








- 






«o 


00 


to 


eg 


01 








eg 




C<1 


o 


o 


to 


CD 


CO 




- 




^ 




CO 


CO 


^ 


- 


f- 


o 




^ 


^ 


TC 




CO 


Tf 


eg 


to 


co 


CO 


-1 


t> 


-H 


o 


-H 


^ 


Tf 




eg 


CO 


in 


CO 


to 




r!< 


CD 


•* 


eg 


eg 


rt 


CO 



l-H 


o 




o 




eg 




eq 


-" 


eg 


CO 


eg 


CO 


eg 


u 


'^ 




O) 




in 


'^ 


eg 


•-^ 


CO 


CO 


^ 


00 


CO 


1 


C3 


^ 


00 




eg 




CD 


- 


eg 


eg 


- 


c^ 


CO 




II 


t> 




■5}< 




1-1 


LO 


CO 


CO 


'^ 


,-1 


CO 


1 

z 


« 


II 


CO 

in 


CO 


CD 




CO 


CO 


eg 


eg 


eg 


eg 


eg 


w 




o 
























fc, 




O 


rf 


^ 


CO 


'-' 


CO 


I> 


in 


CO 




-^ 


CO 






a 


CO 


CO 




LO 


^ 


CO 


rf 


CO 


- 


CO 


^ 








eg 


eg 


^ 


CO 


-^ 


-^ 


eg 


CO 


CO 


-^ 










r-< 


CD 




Tl- 


^ 


'H 


eg 


cq 


-H 







CO in CO o) 



00 CO CO 



CO 


^ 


CD 


r- 


LO 


CD 


eg 


CD 


-* 


?5 


CO 




'^ 


in 




00 






S 












o 


^' 


eg' 


CO 


^' 


in 




W 


Dh 


l-l 


O 


< 



46 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

TABLE VIII 

Offense P 
C Group ranks it 1-5 in 74:% oi cases — 5-10 in 26% 
D " " " 1-5 " 30% " " —5-10 " 70% 

E " " " 1-5 " 48% " " —5-10 " 52% 

S " " « 1-5 " 41% " " —5-10 " 59% 

Offense C 
C Group ranks it 1-5 in 83% of cases — 5-10 in 17% 
D « " " 1-5 " 49% " " —5-10 « 51% 

E « « « 1-5 « 45% « " —5-10 « 55% 

S " " « 1-5 " 58% « " —5-10 " 42% 

Offense N 
C Group ranks it 1-5 in 29% of cases— 5-10 in 71% 
D " " " 1-5 " 67% " " —5-10 " 33% 

E " « " 1-5 " 63% « « —5-10 « 37% 

S « « « 1-5 « 87% " " —5-10 " 13% 

Offense T U S 

C Group ranks it 1-5 in 24% of cases — in 6% — in 17% 
D " " « 1-5 " 49% " " — « 23%— « 30% 

E " « « 1-5 " 18% " " — " 6%— « 21% 

S " " " 1-5 " 31% « « — " 9%— " 317o 

Offense H 
C Group 

Ranked as 1-3 0% 

4 and 5 3% 

5-10 97% 

8-10 82% 

As regards a number of the actions represented in this test, 
there is little difference to be found in the four groups. 

If, however, we compare " P," we notice that though it is 
ranked as between 1 and 5 by 75% of Group C, yet it is ranked 
as between 5 and 10 by 70% of Group D. Noting the rankings 
given by Groups E and S, we find both agree more nearly with 
Group C than does Group D, but the divergence is still great. 
The deed is considered a graver injury by Groups D, S and E 
than by Group C, all three of the former placing it as 1-5 in 
less than 50% of the cases. 

So, too, " C " is ranked as between 1 and 5 by 83% of Group 
C and is so placed by only 49% of Group D, though it is placed 
as between 1 and 5 by 45% of Group E and by 58% of Group S. 

On the other hand, offense " N " is ranked as between 1 and 5 
by 29% of Group C but is so placed by 67% of Group D, by 63% 
of Group E and by 87% of Group S. To the latter this offense 
does not seem serious. 



D Group 


E Group 


S Group 


19% 


3% 


9% 


8% 


6% 


5% 


73% 


91% 


86% 


52% 


84% 


73% 



Results 47 

Offense " H " is ranked 8 to 10 by 82% of Group C as opposed 
to 52% of Group D, while it is so placed by 84% of Group E 
and 73% of Group S. Though the judgment of Groups D and S 
is more nearly alike than any two groups, yet the judgment of 
Groups C, E and S is not so greatly different in regard to this 
deed, and Group D stands rather apart from the others. 

Offense " S " is ranked by Group D the same as offense " P," 
if we divide the ranking into two groups, 1 to 5 and 5 to 10; 
here the judgment of Groups D and S is alike, though in the case 
of the latter, the act is regarded as slightly more serious than 
offense " P." 

If one may generalize at all from this test, it would seem that 
the attitude of Group D towards persons and animals is qiiite 
different from that of Group C. They magnify the injury done 
a dumb animal; indeed, many of them in performing the test 
expressly stated that because it was an unfair advantage to take 
of an animal that can not speak they ranked it as extremely bad. 
Again it would seem that the cruelty which appeals to their 
emotions as in " P " outweighs the subtler injuries as in "N" 
and even in " S." 

As regards Group E, the more serious offenses — T, H, U, S — 
are ranked very much the same by them as by Group C. Groups 
D and S judge more nearly alike except as regards offenses N, H, 
and U, where the discrepancy is considerable. 

(3) Adapted Completion Test 

In the Adapted Completion Test the purpose, as has been 
previously stated, was to determine whether one could discover, 
by means of a test, the intelligence of a subject regarding the 
moral element involved in a definite situation. It was not hoped 
to determine in any way what the subject's actual behavior in 
real life would be, but it was thought that, should one discover 
by means of a test that no knowledge or appreciation of the moral 
element was present in a given case, it might prove a valuable 
bit of information in the understanding of the subject's problems 
and difficulties. It was hoped to use material which would 
embody ideas regarding theft, deceit, display, vanity, cruelty, 
sex excitement and laziness; but in a number of instances the 
blanks did not prove successful. In some cases the point was 
not clearly enough stated to make the judgrhents expressed 



48 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

clear; in others the situation was too simple, while on the other 
hand in one or two instances it was too subtle. A number of the 
instances used proved to be too little related to the real experiences 
and problems of the delinquents. These unsuccessful ones 
were dropped entirely and not scored. On the other hand, 
eight of the incidents used show some points at least of signifi- 
cance. The difficulty is that it is only after having actually 
worked with these girls for a considerable length of time that 
one realizes their problems sufficiently to carry on successfully 
a test of this sort, and, had time permitted, other more valuable 
material might have been substituted so that the method 
would have had a better trial in order to prove its value or its 
uselessness. 

The blanks used were as follows: (The unsuccessful as well 
as the innocent passages are not given). 

Passage I 

1. Mary liked pretty clothes very . She a man who 

offered to give her a new suit if she would go out with him. She was 

to do this and to go in this way to the theatre. 

That was . 

Passage II 

2. A was very hungry. He passed a with food out- 

side and wanted . He no money but he 

rather than be . A girl saw him and thought him . 

Passage III 

3. Mary had gotten a good position. She could earn a good 

living if worked steadily. She did not working 

hard and so she her position. Was this what she de- 
served ? 

Passage IV 

4. A girl was given 35 cents with which to some coffee. She 

it for 25 cents and took it . She told her mother 

about it and the change. Don't you think she 

was . 

Passage V 

5. Two girls were waiting a street corner for a car. A crowd of 

men standing near them. The girls knew the men were 

talking about them and watching them. So the girls began to 
. This showed they . 

Passage VI 

6. Mary's mother her not to go with John, One day she 

out saying she was going to a friend. She really 

met John. She said to herself, " It really is and so I told 

." That was . 



Results 



49 



7. Jane was at a- 



Passage VII 

-show one night. 



A man sitting next- 



her, spoke to her several times. When she got up to go home he 
followed her. Jane and so showed that she . 



The felt hats on one counter 



Passage VIII 

A girl went into a to buy a hat. 

were $1.75 and the velvet hats on another counter 

marked $2.48. One velvet hat by mistake with the felt 

hats that cost $1.75. So she that one. Wasn't she 



Comparing the four groups for general intelligence as shown in 
the moral judgment test, we find the following table of fre- 
quencies : 

TABLE IX 





Frequency 


Score 


Group C: 


3 


5. 




11 


4.9 




16 


4.8 




4 


4.7 




1 


4.6 




1 


4.5 


Group D: 


4 


4.8 




1 


4.7 




2 


4.6 




4 


4.5 




2 


4.4 




2 


4.3 




1 


4.1 




3 


4. 




1 


3.8 




1 


3.7 




1 


3.6 




1 


3.4 




4 


3.3 




1 


3.1 




} 


2.4 
1.4 


Group E: 


1 


4.9 




4 


4.8 




4 


4.7 




3 


4.6 




4 


4.5 




3 


4.4 




3 


4.3 




5 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1 


4.2 
4.1 
3.9 
3.8 
3.7 
3.5 
3. 



50 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls m 

TABLE IX— continued 





Frequency 


Score 


Group.,. S: 


2 


4.8 




3 


4.7 




1 


4.6 




4 


4.4 




1 


4.3 




1 


4.2 




1 


4.1 




2 


4.0 




2 


3.9 




1 


3.8 




1 


3.3 




2 


3.2 




1 


3. 




1 


2.9 




2 


2.7 




1 


2.5 



15 % 
15 % 
27 % 
481% 




111% 
111% 
15f% 
31 % 


a 
u 



From this table it is seen that : 

13i% of Group D reach or exceed the median of Group C 

13i% " « " « " " " 25%ile « « " 

161% " « « " « " " 10%ile " « " 

36f% " " " " " " " poorest " " " 

E « " " " median " « " 

" « « « « 25%ile « « « 

" " « « " 10%ile " " " 

" " " " " poorest " " " 

S " « « « median " " « 

" « « " " 25%ile « " " 

« « « « « 10%ile " « " 

" " « « « poorest « " « 



Though an effort was made to have the passages here as simple 
as possible, yet they proved difficult for many of Groups D, E 
and S. Of course it must be taken into account that the passages 
were extremely easy for Group C; except for carelessness, 
undoubtedly all the members of that group could have attained 
a perfect score. 

Still it will be readily seen that some of these passages, simple 
though they were thought to be, would be difficult to score for 
moral judgment. In the eight finally used for this purpose 
the score for general intelligence is somewhat better. 

In Group C the range is still 4.5 to 5, but the median and mode 
are 5 ; in Group D 80% reach a score of 4 or over. The general 
distribution is shown below: 



Results 



51 





TABLE 


X 




Frequency 


Score 


Group C: 


21 


5. 






4.9 






4.8 






4.75 






4.7 






4.5 


Group D: 




5. 






4.75 






4.5 






4.4 






4.3 






4.25 






4.1 






4. 






3.8 






3.5 






3.4 






3. 






2.25 


Group E: 




5. 






4.9 






4.8 






4.7 






4.6 






4.5 






4.4 






4.3 






4.2 






4.1 






3.9 






3.8 






3.4 






3.2 






3.0 


-^---. 




2.9 






2.5 


Group S: 




4.8 






4.7 






4.6 




3 


4.5 




2 


4.4 




3 


4.3 




3 


4.2 






4. 






3.6 






3.4 






3.3 






3.2 






3. 



Since 80% of Group D receive a score of 80% or over for 
general ability to manage the test, and almost the same per- 
centage of Group E prove as capable, while 77% of Group S 



52 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

attain a score as good, it was felt that the passages were filled 
out well enough to estimate them for moral judgment. 

Rather than score the replies on a scale, say, of to 5, it was 
believed the significance of the inserted words would best be 
shown by enumerating the replies and endeavoring to summarize 
them. 

In Passage I it is seen that the only significant blanks are the 
last three; the others permit of no alternatives and require no 
judgment. Group C filled the last two blanks as follows: 

" She was to go, etc. That was " 

3 anxious wicked 

3 afraid right 

[wrong (4) 

8 glad {awful (2) 

foolish (2) 
[wrong (3) 

5 tempted {sad (1) 

foolish (1) 
bad (4) 

6 willing j unusual (1) 

I indiscreet (1) 
[her decision (1) 

4 unwilling Jhonest (1) 

right (1) 
hard (1) 

2 persuaded Jfoolish (1) 

\primrose path to devil (1) 

n=31 

All these show an appreciation of the situation with the ex- 
ception of one where the judgment is obscure (unwilling-hard) 
and one where no judgment is rendered (unwilHng-her decision). 

In Group D the terms used varied much more widely, yet we 
find the filled blanks falling into two groups. First: 

[right (3) 

5 afraid { wise (1) 

sensible (1) 
bad (2) 

4 going \ wrong (2) 

[not right (1) 

2 glad wrong 

1 anxious silly 

1 delighted not right 

2 persuaded /foolish (1) 

\bad (1) 

1 in humor wrong 

1 told wrong 

1 wishing wrong 

1 willing not right 

n=19 



Results 53 

These seem in no wise to differ from the terms used by Group C ; 
the judgments are certainly comparable and indicate an equal 
appreciation of the moral element involved. The second group 
of replies is as follows : 

2 dressed /happy (1) 

\all right (1) 

[all right (2) 
5 glad I surprising (1) (why so nice ?) 

I smart (1) 

[simply fine (1) 

1 decided pleasure 

1 willing pleasure 

1 told bad policy 

1 wanted aU 

n=ll 

Of these 11, the last two are doubtful, the one expressing no 
judgment, the other being not clear. The remaining nine, or 
30%, show little discrimination of ethical values and, since all 
seemed perfectly sincere and naive in giving the words to be 
written down, they seem to have expressed their real judgment 
regarding the situation. It seems clear that the deed here men- 
tioned means nothing wrong to them ; they see in it no particular 
danger or wrong doing. 

Group E filled the blanks as follows : 



7 willing. 
3 going.. 



result of wanting to dress 
\ beyond means (1) 

wrong (4) wicked (1) bad (1) 

wrong (1) 
foolish (1) 

temptation (1) 

2 afraid good (1) right (1) 

1 glad wrong 

1 anxious wrong 

1 reluctant right 

1 eager a mistake 

1 unwilling sensible 

1 displeased right 

1 deciding wrong 

1 going see 

1 pleased her way 

1 glad the end 

1 afraid all 

fright (1) luck (1) 

3 anxious \imposing on good nature (1) 

n=26 

Here we find the last three, or 13.6%, of the 26 cases showing 
lack of moral perception and the four immediately preceding 
evading the issue by forming no judgment. 



54 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

In Group S we find — 

5 willing wrong (3) foolish (1) not good (1) 

4 afraid right (3) wise (1) 

3 anxious fooHsh (1) not right (1) ignorant (1) 

1 pleased not right 

2 glad not sensible (1) wrong (1) 

1 delighted wrong 

1 satisfied naughty 

3 going not wise (1) awful (1) bad (1) 

1 anxious a pleasure 

1 pleased a pleasure 

1 going nice 

1 asked nice 

2 willing fine (1) done (1) 

n=26 

The last reply shows no judgment; the five preceding, or 19%, 
show poor moral judgment. 

That is, comparing the four groups, we find poor moral 
perception in Group C, 0%; in Group E, 13.6%; in Group S, 
19%; in Group D, 30%. 

Passage II involves the idea of theft. The significant blanks — 
again the last three — are filled in only a few different ways by 
all the groups. 

The results are as follows : 



Group C 
" But he rather than be A girl thought him . 

11 stole starved /thief 

Ibad 

14 starved a thief fgood 

\honest 
1 starved hungry stupid 

fno judgment 
beggar 
tramp 
n=35 



Group D 

12 stole starved /thief 

Ibad 

8 starved a thief /good 

\honest 

3 stole hungry right 

("honest 

3 asked stealing < hungry 



n=26 



[tramp 



Results 55 

Group E 

[bad 

3 stole hungry jwrong 

[thief 

[steal pitiful 

13 starved -^be a beggar honest 

[be dishonest noble, good 

2 went hiuigry be dishonest brave, model of manhood 

1 hungered thief good 

1 asked hungry nice 

1 died a thief good 

2 walked away be dishonest poor, hungry 

1 asked hungry poor 

1 begged starve rude 

1 starved a thief foolish 

=26 

Group S 

13 starved fsteal right, good 

\mean a thief, queer 

8 stole hungry thief 

2 went hungry be dishonest good, nice 

1 asked be hungry right 

1 stole hungry foolish 

=25 



No one in Groups C or E considered the stealing right, though 
one in each group considered it as stupid not to commit it rather 
than be hungry; whereas three subjects in Group D feel such 
an act to be justifiable under the circumstances. But, on the 
other hand, 21 out of 26, or nearly 81%, in Group D form a 
judgment that is the same as that of 25 out of 35, or 71%, in 
Group C. From this we might conclude that the judgment in 
the two groups is not so greatly different. Here only three 
subjects, or 11^%, differ from Group C as compared with 30% 
in the Passage above, while Groups C, E and S are uniform in 
their judgment of the situation. In Group S two judgments 
are doubtful, one regards the fact of starving as foolish, but none 
regards stealing as justified. 

The next Passage, number III, meant to test the attitude 
towards industry, is not particularly successful for the purpose; 
the situation is almost too simple. Yet it shows some difference 
in the judgment of the groups, as is seen in the filling of the three 
following blanks : 



56 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

Group C 

" She did not working hard and so she her position. 

Deserved ? " 

28 like lost yes 

6 mind held yes 

n--34 

Group D 

17 like lost yes 

2 mind held yes 

6 like lost no 

4 no judgment expressed. 

n=29 

Group E 
22 like lost yes 

5 mind held yes 

5 believe in lost yes 

1 like lost no 

n=33 

Group S 

18 like lost yes 

3 mind held yes 

1 want left no 

1 like took it easy yes 

2 like lost no 

n=25 

That is, 20|% of Group D feel that dismissal because of not 
working is unjustifiable, whereas this is true of no one in Group C. 
From the remarks that accompanied the expression of the senti- 
ment on the part of several of these subjects, the experimenter 
feels confident that they meant what they said, for they expressed 
themselves in no uncertain terms. Their attitude seemed differ- 
ent from the other 79|% of the group. In Group E, one subject, 
or 3% of the group, agreed with the 20|% of Group D, as did 
8% of Group vS. In the latter group two judgments are doubtful. 

The last two blanks in Passage IV were filled as follows: 

Group C 
"And the change. Wasn't she " 



15 kept wrong (bad-dishonest-thief) 

17 returned good (honest-right) 

1 returned generous 

1 returned sa\4ng 

1 hid dishonest 



n=35 



Results 57 

Group D 

7 kept wrong (bad-mean) 

1 kept rude 

12 returned good (right-honest-happy) 

1 told about correct 

1 10c. change bright (" because she got a bargain ") 

1 wanted foolish 

1 lost bad 

1 honest 

1 kept smart 

1 spent wise 

3 kept bright 

n=30 

Group E 

15 gave good (honest, right) 

6 returned good (honest, right) 

11 kept wrong (dishonest, bad, wicked, untrustworthy) 

n=32 



Group S 

13 gave good (right, honest) 

9 kept wrong (bad, untrue) 

2 kept good 

1 took smart 



n=25 



In several instances in Groups D and S one does not feel sure 
that the subjects may have said just what they intended or 
they may have misunderstood the sentence read and seen, as 
for example in the reply, " She kept the change. Wasn't she 
honest ? " Those who answered that such action was right or 
wise or smart probably meant that. Counting the doubtful 
case, we should have in Group D 20% of the group showing no 
moral judgment, without it 16f%; and in Group S, 12%, 
counting the doubtful cases, and 4% without them. 

The replies in Passage V are difficult to summarize, the blanks 
permit of such a variety of words being inserted. Though in 
the first of the two significant blanks but seven actions were 
suggested in Group C and 10 in Group D, yet the number of 
judgments expressed in the second blank varied much more 
widely. (The verbs inserted in the second blank are omitted.) 



58 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

Group C 
" So the girls began to This showed they " 

'flirts (2) common (1) silly (1) 

not wise (3) no training (1) 
14 smile -^pleased (1) self conscious (3) 

to attract attention (1) 

^dangerous type (1) 

'ladies (2) annoyed (3) refined (1) 

modest (1) nice (1) good (2) 
16 walk away -^not flirts (1) well brought up (1) 

didn't want attention (1) 
[didn't want to be spoken to (1) 

2 talk vain 

1 turn their backs sensible 

1 giggle silly 

1 run proud 

n=35 Group D 

4 smile knew (2) ignorant (1) bad (1) 

4 flirt bad (2) fresh (2) 

{respectable (4) sense (1) nice (2) 
didn't like it (3) pride (1) 
annoyed (1) didn't want to be 
conspicuous (1) didn't like men (1) 

1 talked to them didn't care 

1 shout afraid 

1 fidget nervous 

1 cry feared 

1 to be frightened sensible 

1 hit them didn't Hke it 

1 get nervous wanted their car 

n=29 Group E 

16 walk away f sensible, good, respectable, an- 

\ noyed, etc. 

3 laugh conscious, foolish, vulgar 

3 walk ladies, didn't like it, knew 

2 giggle foolish 

1 talk disliked it 

1 talk softly refined 

1 smile weak 

1 run frightened 

1 get frightened didn't like attention 

2 move on wise, afraid 

11=31 Group S 

4 laugh silly, flirting 

1 get angry nice 

1 move good 

1 hurry didn't like it 

1 got cross disliked it 

1 talk friends 

1 cry afraid j 

1 run afraid . 

1 go afraid .' 

13 walk away /good, sensible, indignant, etc. ' 

— \knew something (1) 

11=25 



Results 59 

Herej though it is difficult to state briefly differences in moral 
judgment, it is interesting to note the manner in which the 
situation is viewed by the different groups. To Group C it is 
apparently a rather harmless situation to which one reacts in 
practically one of two ways — either by encouragement or by 
discouragement. But to many of Group D it is the occasion 
of alarm and seems to signify something more than is indicated 
on the surface. " They knew," " they were ignorant," " they 
were afraid," " were nervous," " they feared," are all responses 
very different from those given by any member of Group C. 
In Group E we find in five cases likewise the terms, " were 
afraid," " they knew." And of the 25 subjects in Group S, 
three use the word " afraid " and one " knew something." 

Passage VI proved too difficult for many of Group D; the 
force of the situation was often not grasped. The point desired 
was to see if it were recognized that by using the word " friend " 
the girl in the story was hiding a falsehood by a subterfuge. 

Though the blanks vary considerably, yet except for four 
who expressed no judgment in their inserted words, all members 
of Group C indicated that Mary had lied and that it was wrong. 
In some instances Mary herself recognized the untruth and the 
judgment of the subject corroborated this view; in other 
instances Mary did not, but the subject decided the action was 
wrong or was moral quibbling. The blanks were filled as 
follows : 

Group C 
"And so I told That was " 



8 a lie wrong 

1 a lie depressing 

8 the truth a lie 

2 the truth deceitful 

1 the truth moral quibbling 

1 the truth dishonest 

2 the truth wrong 

2 all right wrong 

2 what was wrong true 

4 no judgment 

n=31 

In Group D, however, only nine perceived the true situation, 
six showed they did not, and nine subjects showed such confusion 
that the moral value of their replies could not be determined. 
Thus: 



60 Comparative Study oj Intelligence oj Delinquent Girls 

2 truth wrong 

1 nothing disobedient wrong 

1 lie dreadful 

1 the wrong true 

1 what was wrong not honest 

1 what was wrong a lie 

1 what was wrong against her mother's wish 

1 what was deceitful true 



n= 9 



1 truth truth 

1 truth all right 

3 truth so 

1 mother all right, for pleasure 



n= 6 



6 no judgment 
9 confused 



The confused ones were similar to the reply of one subject 
who said, " It really is a shame and so I told mother. That was 
a lie." Here and in the other eight the two statements are either 
not true as regards the preceding part of the situation, or the 
parts contradict each other. But the six cases, 20% of the entire 
group or 25% of the 24 subjects who filled the blanks in any 
manner, certainly show no realization of the falsehood. 

In Group E four subjects found the passage too difficult to 
attempt and left it entirely blank; the remaining subjects 
inserted the following words : 

4 mother deceitful, right, a lie, all 

8 what was wrong so, truth, right 

1 what was wicked so 

2 a lie wrong, mean and low 

5 truth bad, lie, false 

1 not right wrong, true 

1 the right wrong 

1 him imtruth 

1 truth so 

1 mother so 

n=25 



Three of these are words which made the significance doubtful 
but two, or 7% of all the group, or 8% of those who filled the 
blanks, fail to see the falsity of the subterfuge. 

The words inserted by 23 subjects in Group S, three having 
left the entire passage unfilled, are : — 



Results 61 

6 lie wrong, the truth 

5 mother bad, untrue 

2 truth wrong, falsehood 

2 a He 

3 mother my friend, John, all 

2 no lie all right, true 

1 a Ue better 

2 truth so 

n=23 

Here, besides the three passages left blank, five others show 
no judgment and five no perception of falsehood — that is, 19% 
of the entire group or 2 If % of the 23 subjects who responded in 
this passage. Here Groups D and S are almost equal in per 
cent of those showing poor moral judgment. 

Passage VII permitted of a great variety of action indeed. 
Jane could do a great many things as the insertions show. 
However, except for one subject, no one in Group C had Jane 
behave in any manner other than most properly, and the one 
exception regarded the action as " wicked." Just what she 
did varied from " ignoring " her neighbor to " sticking him 
with a hat pin." A few characteristic replies are selected 
which are typical of all the remainder. 

Group C 
" Jane and so showed that she " 

was disgusted was displeased 

paid no attention was annoyed 

caUed poHce a lady 

ran afraid 

stuck with hatpin plucky 

was proud and dignified had good judgment 

In Group D the replies of 21 subjects are comparable to these 

as the following typical examples show : 

was displeased didn't like it 

was indignant a lady 

called an officer a lady 

hurried was annoyed 

But the replies of seven subjects are quite different: 

1 was amazed at his actions appreciated his kindness 

1 got acquainted she liked him 

1 must have been pretty was aU right 

1 said she liked his company liked him 

1 came over to him was bashful 

1 was excited wasn't afraid 

1 tried to be a good girl she tried, at least 

n=7 



62 Comparative Shidy oj Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

These, including the last rather pathetic one, show lack of 
appreciation of the situation and surely help to understand 
somewhat better the make-up of the delinquent subject — her 
intelligence in regard to one social situation at least. In this 
case we have 25% of the group included. 

In Group E, the insertions, very similar to those of Group C, 

are as follows : 

turned away was lady 

ignored him was lady 

very angry disliked it 

slapped his face not to be fooled with 

In all cases Jane discouraged her neighbor and none of the replies 
were comparable to the seven especially mentioned in Group D. 

The same is true of the fourth group. Group S; all of the 
subjects show an understanding of the situation, and in no case 
is the action of the neighbor countenanced or considered all 
right. 

Here again typical replies are : — 

disapproved didn't like it 

ran home was scared 

hit with umbrella was sensible 

had him arrested good 

The next Passage, number VIII, proved a very interesting 
one, for though the groups vary greatly, yet more of Group C 
agree with those who fail to have a high standard of ethical 
values in Group D than in any one passage. It is only necessary 
to give details for the last blank, for in all instances the girl was 
made to buy the hat, the blank being filled, " So she took that 
one," 

Group C 

"Wasn't she ." 

4 clever 
2 lucky 
2 sly 
1 sensible 
1 right 
25 wrong, i.e., 
5 bad 

3 a cheat 
10 dishonest 

1 a crook 
1 terrible 

4 deceitful 
1 horrid 

n=35 



Results 63 

Group D 



ir smart 

3 right 

1 pleased 

1 sensible 

9 lucky 

5 wrong, i.e., 
1 a cheat 
1 stealing 
1 wrong 
1 dishonest 
1 mean 



n=30 



Group E 



3 lucky 
3 clever 

2 wise 

1 smart 

6 right 

15 wrong 

7 dishonest 

2 wrong 

2 deceitful 

1 a thief 

1 cheating the company 

1 unfair 

1 untruthful 

n==30 

Group S 

5 right 

6 lucky 

3 wise 

1 bright 
6 smart 
1 happy 

1 clever 
Iglad 

2 wrong 

1 mean 
1 dishonest 

n=26 

That is, 28|% of Group C regard this action as justifiable as 
against 71|% who regard it as wrong. In Group D, however, 
83^% regard it as justifiable and 16f % as wrong. In Group E in 
50% regard it as justifiable, the other 50% as wrong; while Group 
S only about 7|% regard it as at all dishonest as opposed to 92 j% 
who believe it to be entirely honest. Thus we see the groups vary 
widely in their judgment but a greater per cent of Group C shows 
lower ethical standard here than in any of the situations. 

This fact, however, makes the experimenter view the type of 
test rather favorably — it speaks well for the test. For in real 



64 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

life, this situation wotild probably be regarded by many a 
non-delinquent as perfectly " all right " on the plea that the 
fault lay with the proprietor of the store or his clerks rather than 
with the customer. 

In the table given below, the general results in the eight 
passages are summarized. 

TABLE XI 

Passage I. Lack of moral judgment shown by: 

0. % Group C 

13.6% " E 

19. % " S 

30. % " D 

Passage IL Stealing justified by: 

0. % Group C 

0. % " E 

0. % " S 

201 % " D 

Passage IIL Lack of industry countenanced by : 
0. % Group C 

3. % " E 
8. % " S 

20§ % " D 

Passage IV. Dishonesty approved of by: 

0. % Group C 
0. % " E 

4. % (possibly 12%) Group S 
161 % (possibly 20%) " ^ D 

Passage V. Notice by opposite sex regarded as dangerous by: 

0. % Group C 

16i % " E 

12. % " D 

27i % " S 

Passage VI. A subterfuge regarded as legitimate and not a lie by: 

0. % Group C 

8. % " E 

21f % " S 

25. % " D 

Passage VII. Unwarranted familiarity on the part of a stranger counten- 
anced by: 



Passage VIII. 



0. 


% Group C 


0. 


% " 


E 


0. 


% " 


S 


25. 


% 


D 


ing advantage of known mistake justified by 


28| % Group C 


50. 


07 " 

/o 


E 


921 


% " 


S 


83^, % " 


D 



Results 65 

Whatever criticisms can be made as to the moral judgment 
test, one would hesitate to say that nothing is gained by it. 
For, on the whole, this test does give definite indications of indi- 
vidual differences in the intelligence of subjects in regard to 
ethical elements. The impressions of the experimenter in 
actually conducting the test were often very vivid. Had the 
situations been more carefully planned and the alternatives 
more skillfully devised the results would probably have been 
more satisfactory. The method itself seems capable of improve- 
ment and its use promises to prove of considerable value. 

Even in its present unsatisfactory form, certain differences 
are shown between some members of Group D and other members 
in that same group, as well as between the former and the other 
groups. This is as one would expect; for surely not all delin- 
quents are lacking in intelligence with regard to right and wrong 
whatever their behavior might indicate. Nor need they show 
equally poor intelHgence in regard to all ethical elements. 

The fact that no member of Group C would consider accepting 
the offer made in Passage I or, at least, that such acceptance 
was recognized as unwise, wrong or unjustifiable, but that, on 
the contrary, certain members of the other groups disagree 
with this, is indicative of different judgment in regard to a 
situation that might actually arise in the lives of some of these 
subjects. That it not only might, but does, is shown by the fact 
that the test blank was based on an incident narrated by a 
member of Group D. The consequences following from the 
judgment of the 13.6% of Group E, of the 19% of Group S and 
of the 30% of Group D might vary according to other character- 
istics possessed by the subjects, but the point of view in regard 
to the situation yet enables one to form a clearer opinion regarding 
the mental make-up of the individual. 

Just how one would act were he placed in the situation de- 
picted in Passage II is not, of course, necessarily shown by the 
replies given by the individual subjects. How one views the 
action on the part of another is a different matter. Those who 
stated it as their belief that to steal when one is hungry is 
" right," show thereby a definite attitude as regards this situa- 
tion, which, however they themselves might justify the behavior, 
might, nevertheless, readily lead to conflict with the law. 

Simple as is the situation presented in Passage III, we find 



66 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

quite a difference in the replies given. Is not the fact that, in 
the test, lack of industry is countenanced 2| times as often by 
Group D as by Group S, and nearly 7 times as often as by 
Group E, not to mention the still greater variance in judgment on 
the part of Group C, of some significance ? Some writers place 
among the causes which lead to entering lives of immorality, 
the plea that it is " easier " than occupations that are " hard " 
and tedious, though honest. Perhaps, then, this blank may 
indicate some trait of character, at least, found in members of 
the different groups. 

In Passage IV the actions of the members of the different 
groups could not be foretold, of course, by the judgments ren- 
dered in the blanks, for one may know a deed to be wrong and 
still perform it. Again, the 20f % of Group D may have been 
franker and more honest in expressing a conviction held also 
by some members of the other groups, and so it is possible that 
it may not represent their real intelligence regarding the act. 
That is, they may have the accepted standard of honesty and 
yet regard the deed as justified or wise or sensible, whereas 
members of the other groups may express the accepted standard 
and in their own minds regard the action of dishonesty here as 
justifiable in their own if not in another's behavior. 

Passage V requires little more discussion than has been given 
in connection with the detailed replies enumerated. Whether 
the differences in attitude are accounted for by the past ex- 
periences of the subjects, by differences in environmental 
conditions in which the subjects live or have lived, is difficult to 
know. 

If one felt sure that the significance of the situation presented 
in Passage VI was recognized equally well by all the subjects 
in the four groups, one would be able to state that the ethical 
standard regarding truth telling is not the same for all members 
of the groups and that it is lowest for Group D. But, on the 
other hand, the passage was left unanswered or answered in so 
confused a manner by a large per cent of Groups D and S, of 
the former especially, that the per cents are based on a compara- 
tively small part of those groups. 

Perhaps Passage VII proved more valuable than any other 
as far as serving to give an insight into the intelligence with 
which our groups would meet a situation of a kind very possible 



Results 67 

to be. encountered by many of them. The blanks permitted of 
such freedom in reply, so little was suggested by the setting as 
regards response in behavior, that they could state what they 
actually believed to be the best action to pursue. The results 
here are almost startling — the difference between Group D and 
the three other groups is so striking. That 75% of group D 
might in real life behave in a manner so different from the other 
25% is true, yet to realize that these seven girls would possibly 
react in this manner through lack of intelligent realization of the 
situation might prove a help in protecting them, certainly at 
least in judging them. 

Compared with this passage, the next. Passage VIII, is inter- 
esting. Instead of finding Group D standing apart, as it were, 
we see here much more uniformity in judgment. Group S falling 
below Group D as regards the standard of honesty; this is the 
only instance where this is true. Throughout the other seven 
passages Group D as a whole shows less intelligence in regard to 
moral elements. Yet in no instance, save in Passage VIII, do 
we find as many as one-third of the group differing from Group 
C where the conventional standard is upheld by all except in 
the last passage. The majority of them show as much under- 
standing of the situations presented and the same standard in 
judging right and wrong. 

But if the test serves to find those among the whole delinquent 
group whose apperceptive power, or whose judgment, is poor in 
regard to definite moral situations, it will have been worth 
while. 

Referring back to Table I, page 5, we see that all the 30 mem- 
bers of Group D are guilty of sex offenses except two, numbers 

10 and 28. But of the remaining 28 subjects, 8 are guilty of 
other offenses as well — 7 of stealing and 1 of general incorrigi- 
bility. Number 18 is besides guilty of excessive lying and number 

11 had not only told numerous untruths but, among them, had 
made false accusations against her own father. 

In order to determine whether this group differed in judgment 
from the remaining 20 subjects who were held as sex offenders 
without other charges, the moral judgment blanks were divided 
into two groups for comparison of the 8 passages. Three deal 
with honesty or stealing, namely. Passages II, IV and VIII. 
In the first of these, 2 of the 3 subjects who felt stealing when 



68 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

hungry to be justified, are among our smaller group, one being 
number 19, a girl with a long career back of her, who had served 
one term of commitment in the reformatory, and who, on being 
re-arrested just previous to the testing, was found to • be a 
member of a gang of pickpockets for whom the police had long 
lain in wait. The other, number 30, charged with excessive 
incorrigibility, showed throughout the tests, as well as in her 
conversation, distinctly anti-social tendencies. The other six 
subjects, however, did not indicate lack of knowledge, at least, 
that stealing is wrong. 

Again, in Passage IV, two subjects, numbers 30 and 15, are 
among those who see no wrong in dishonesty, and one other is 
the doubtful case. 

In Passage VIII, two of the five subjects who have the highest 
ideals, abstractly at least, are numbers 25 and 19. These, of 
all eight guilty of theft, are most proficient in this direction, 
using it as a means of earning a livelihood, for one is a pro- 
fessional pickpocket, the other a shop-lifter. 

Number 18, in whom falsifying is so excessive that it is desig- 
nated as a delinquency, answers in Passage VI that moral 
quibbling and lying by means of subterfuge is " all right." 

Number 30 alone of all the subjects shows consistently 
throughout the eight passages the same attitude: To steal 
when hungry is right, to keep money belonging to another is 
right, to take advantage of another's error is " wise," to lose 
one's position for not working is wrong, to conceal a lie by quib- 
bling is justified. Aside from the one subject, however, we find 
the others are either inconsistent in their lives, or offend though 
their judgment of right and wrong is no more faulty than is 
that of other members of the delinquent group not guilty of 
these particular offenses, or indeed no more faiilty than those 
not delinquent so far as is known. 

(4) Supplementary Test in Physical Endurance 

In the American Journal of Insanity, 1911-12, Vol. 68. there 
appeared an article on " Differentiating Tests for the Defective 
Delinquent Class " by Guy Fernald. The study as a whole is 
not comparable to ours for it deals with boys only. However, 
among the tests used was one designated an " achievement 
capacity" test, which was intended to determine will power. 
The subjects were to stand as long as possible with their heels 



Results 69 

raised. J inch from the floor. An electrical device recorded the 
touching of the floor. While it seems valuable to be able to 
measure in som^e way will power as measured by physical en- 
durance, the test is rather inconvenient, since it requires so much 
time; for after experimentation it was found that the norm 
for the average is 50 minutes. 

In hopes of measuring much the same trait in personality or 
capacity, a simpler test was desired. In this study it was hoped 
to determine much the same quaUty by the following means: 
The subject was given a pair of iron dumb-bells, each of which 
weighed two pounds. She was told on a given signal to take one 
in each hand and extend the arms level with the shoulders, 
holding the dumb-bells in a horizontal position. Previous to 
this, the object of the test had been explained; she was to show 
how much grit she had, and it was explained that the longer she 
held the dumb-bells the better the record would be. There was 
no elaborate technique, but as soon as the arms were dropped 
about five inches or more the time score was taken. Comparing 
then the record for the 28 girls tested in Group D and the 34 in 
Group C, we have Table XII. 

The two best records in Group D are hardly fair, since both 
these subjects were trained athletes appearing on the vaude- 
ville stage almost up to the time the test was made. In con- 
sequence, their records show the benefit of unusual practice 
which all other members of the group had not had. Omitting 
them, we find that but three of the remaining 26 members of 
Group D reached or exceeded the median record of Group C. 
However, it is but fair to say that in Group C a number of the 
subjects were tested in small groups and a record attained by 
one acted as a stimiilus to the others in an effort to excel their 
fellow-students. On the other hand, in a number of cases in 
Group D the subject was told the highest record that had been 
already attained by any member of the group and was urged to 
try to surpass it, but the ambition to do so seemed in most 
cases not worth the discomfort of continued holding of the dumb- 
bells after some slight pain had begun. Forty-six per cent of 
Group D reached or exceeded the 25 percentile of Group C and 
15% of Group D attained a poorer record than any member of 
Group C. While it might be thought that Group D were at a 
decided disadvantage owing to poor physical condition and some 
other factors, yet, on the other hand, we must remember that 



70 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



TABLE 


XII 


D 


c 


500 


437 


408 


330 


210 


314 


183 


305 


145 


300 


120 


300 


120 


265 


110 


252 


103 


225 


103 


190 


93 


180 


90 


180 


90 


175 


90 


165 


79 


150 


79 


140 


78 


125 


70 


115 


69 


115 


68 


110 


65 


110 


64 


110 


63 


105 


58 


100 


49 


100 


32 


90 


29 


90 


20 


85 





85 


= 28 


83 





75 




70 




64 




55 



n = 34 

most of the subjects were much more accustomed to performing 
work in which the muscles of the arms were used than were 
members of the College Group. 

Both from the table of results and the notes of the writer at 
the conclusion of the various tests, it would seem that the 
members of Group C were much more willing to endure physical 
discomfort for the sake of a good record than were the members 
of Group D. Very frequently girls in the latter group would 
remark, " Oh, it hurts ! " and drop the dumb-bells. They 
seemed on the whole to have much less will power and physical 
endurance, at least in matters where there was no necessity for 
continued discomfort other than mere pride in a deed well 
accomplished. 



I 



PART IV 
1. OTHER INVESTIGATIONS 

The studies of the question of the relation existing between 
mental ability and delinquency have been on the whole quite 
fragmentary. Lombroso was already interested in the question 
of the female offender as his book of that title indicates. The 
EngHsh translation appeared in 1909. As is well known, 
however, Lombroso 's interest was largely the study of the physical 
anomalies of the criminal; so that in this study the emphasis is 
placed on anthropometrical measurements. He discussed " The 
Brains of Female Criminals," " The Skull of the Female 
Offender," and " The Facial and Cephalic Anomalies," but 
made no study of the native or acquired abilities of his subjects. 
He did devote one chapter to acuteness of sense, but since his 
main desire was to corroborate his principle, that there is an 
intimate correlation between bodily conditions and behavior, he 
scarcely touched on the question in which we are interested. 

As a result of his examination, he found that the criminal 
population as a whole is to be distingmshed from the average 
member of the community by a much higher percentage of 
physical anomalies, consisting largely of malformations in the 
skull and brain and face. It is unnecessary to enumerate his 
findings in detail. Suffice it to say that they have been subjected 
to much criticism and in the form in which he enunciated them 
are little held today. 

Madame Tarnowsky's studies, which preceded his and which 
he so often quotes, are similar in character to his own. 

Within the last few years a few studies more comparable to 
our own have been made. There appeared in The Training 
School, January, 1912, an article called " Defective Children in 
the Juvenile Court," by Mrs. E. Garfield Gifford and Henry H. 
Goddard. This study was based upon 100 cases of boys and 
girls chosen at random from children then in the Detention 
Home in Newark, N. J. They were guilty of various misde- 

71 



72 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

meanors, largely consisting of stealing, immorality and in- 
corrigibility. The mental status of these children was determined 
solely by the use of the Binet tests and the results indicated the 
discrepancies between the chronological and mental ages. The 
results are shown in detail below. 

THE MENTAL STATUS OF 100 CHILDREN IN A 
DETENTION HOME 



Chron. 


No. 


Years 


Average 


Yr. 


Cases 


Retarded 


Mental Age 


10 


1 


Normal 


10 


10 


1 


1 


9.1 


91 


4 


11 


8 


11 


9 


2 


9 


111 


6 


21 


9.2 


12| 


7 


3 


9.3 


m 


6 


31 


10 


14i 


26 


4 


10 


14 


6 


41 


9.2 


14.9 


10 


5 


9.4 


14i 




Si 


9 


16.V 


11 


6 


10 


15y 




61 


9.2 


15- 




n 


7.4 


17 




8 


8.2 



From the above tables we find that there were in these 100 
children 34% who were less than 4 years retarded. These, the 
authors conclude, might with proper training be helped to make 
up their backwardness and be aided in becoming eventually 
useful citizens. The remaining 66% were 4 years or more behind 
their chronological age and were, therefore, classified as feeble- 
minded. Presumably these children were considered hopelessly 
defective, so much so that they could not be reclaimed. The 
authors conclude that the younger children may already have been 
arrested in development, and if it were possible to re-test them 
several years later they, too, might be so backward as to fall 
into the hopelessly subnormal group. They conclude that all 
children in the courts should be studied, mentally classified and 
treated according to their mental condition rather than according 
to physical size or chronological age. 

A " Study of Delinquent Girls," by Dr. Anne Burnet, of 
Chicago, was published in The Institution Quarterly, June 30, 
1912. This is an official organ of the PubHc Charity Service 
of Illinois. The study dealt with a group of young women, 
also inmates of a Detention Home. There were 106 subjects. 



Other Investigations 73 

the average age being 15 years 8 months, the range of ages, 
8 years to 20. Nearly all were sex deHnquents. The problems 
investigated were much more comprehensive than in the former 
study reported. They dealt with the physical development, the 
home conditions, the school career and the occupations in which 
the subjects had been engaged, as well as with the psychological 
examination. The results indicated that the physical develop- 
ment of most of the girls was very good indeed. Only two could 
be called distinctly poorly developed and both of these were 
feeble-minded. Thirteen were unusually large and over- 
developed. There were many cases of defects of one kind and 
another, such as enlarged tonsils, thyroids, bad teeth, defective 
speech, general nervousness and so on. In testing the special 
senses, sight and hearing, a considerable proportion of defect 
was discovered. 

The home conditions in the majority of the cases were un- 
satisfactory. Only six of the 106 subjects claimed to have 
good homes. 

As regards the school records, three of the group maintained 
they had reached high school, fourteen others claimed to have 
made the eighth grade, while the average attainment was between 
the fifth and sixth grades. 

The results of the psychological tests led to an enumeration 
of the cases under the following headings : 

(a) Considerably above ordinary in ability and information — the latter 

estimated with reference to age and social advantages 2 

(b) Ordinary in ability and information — -the latter estimated as above . 18 

(c) Native ability fair and formal educational advantages fair or good, 

but very poorly informed 1 

(d) Native ability fair and formal educational advantages fair or good. . 23 

(e) Native ability distinctly good, but formal educational advantages 

poor 

(f) Native ability fair and formal educational advantages poor 15 

(g) Native ability poor and formal educational advantages poor 8 

(h) Native ability poor and formal educational advantages good or fair. 12 

(i) Dull from recognized physical causes 6 

(j) Subnormal mentality — above the usual institutional tj^pe of feeble- 
minded 9 

(k) Feeble-minded (Moron) 6 

(1) Imbecile. 

(m) Psychoses 5 

Doubtful case 1 

Total 106 

Examining this group, one finds that 21 of the group, or 
about 20%, were mentally dull enough to come below the class 



74 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinqtient Girls 

designated as distinctly poor in mental ability. In other words, 
one-fifth of the whole number were distinctly below par from 
the standpoint of mental powers, while 15 or 14% were poor 
enough to be classed as subnormal or feeble minded. Equally 
as interesting are the results if the emphasis is thrown on the 
converse side, for nearly three-fourths of this group of delin- 
quent girls proved to be fairly capable and 44, or 41%, are 
classified as being fair in ability or above. 

In The Psychological Review, May, 1913, there appeared an 
article entitled " Report of Experiments at the State Reforma- 
tory for Women, Bedford, N. Y.," by Eleanor Rowland. These 
experiments were conducted during the summer of 1910. The 
object was to see if it was possible to frame a set of tests which 
would, on application to a given girl, determine whether she repre- 
sented the grade of normality necessary to receive benefit from 
the educational work of the institution or to be safely set free 
to earn her living after her term was over. Thirty-five girls 
were used as subjects, the poorest of whom were regarded by the 
superintendent as subnormal and unfit for freedom. Four 
tests were used: 

(1) Reaction time. 

(2) Memory. 

(3) Attention. 

(4) Direct and indirect suggestibility. 

Nine records in all were obtained for each subject. Then a 
standard of normahty for each test was taken, and every girl 
who fell below this standard was marked as failing in this test. 
A girl who failed in six out of nine was regarded as subnormal. 

In the first test, that of reaction time, 50 trials were made, the 
first 10 of which were regarded as practice tests, and the average 
of the 40 subsequent trials was taken as the final score. The 
average time which was used as the standard was .14 to .19 of a 
second. In consequence, those subjects whose average reaction 
time was .20 of a second or over were regarded as subnormal. 
Eleven failed to reach this> speed. 

" There were two memory tests, one auditory and the other 
visual. Two lists of nonsense syllables were used with three 
letters in each syllable. One list was read aloud to the observer 
till she could repeat it, and the other Hst was exposed at the 



Other Investigations 75 

same rate (two seconds exposure), one syllable at a time, behind 
a small window in a screen. A conservative average rate for 
women for memorizing such syllables is twenty trials for an 
auditory and thirteen for a visual. The visual series is easier 
for the average woman who reads easily. Among the women 
at Bedford, where reading is not an accomplishment, and where 
the whole experiment was novel, twenty-five trials were taken 
as a fair standard in both sets of tests. If, after fifteen trials, 
there were so few syllables memorized that it was obvious that 
in twenty-five trials the list could not be complete the observer 
was not fatigued by further effort. Any observer who had not 
learned the list before the twenty-fifth trial was regarded as 
subnormal for either auditory or visual memory. When the 
observer was illiterate, the verbal test was, of course, impossible." 

Three different types of tests were used to measure powers of 
attention. 

In the first, which was intended to measure the span of atten- 
tion, the observer was shown a set of seven cards, 6x2^ inches, 
upon which were pasted, in all, 86 objects, such as pictures, 
letters, scraps of colored paper. Each card was exposed for 
three seconds, after which the observer was asked to tell what 
she had seen. A record of only 21% or less of the total number 
shown was regarded as subnormal; 19 failed to reach the 
required standard. 

The second test for attention dealt with the problem of dis- 
tractibility. The observer was asked to run a small pointer 
as quickly as possible over an involved maze of lines and the 
speed was gotten from an average of seven trials. Then a 
similar maze was provided upon which pictures and other dis- 
tracting objects had been pasted between the lines, and the 
average of seven more trials taken in order to determine how 
much the pictures had distracted the attention. Trials with 
the fiUed and unfilled maze alternated in order to avoid undue 
practice efEect influencing either one. A difference in time 
between the score of the two types of mazes which amounted to 
95% or under was regarded as subnormal, as well as a complete 
failure to traverse the whole maze after a fair amount of practice 
in less than 150 seconds. Fourteen of the subjects failed to 
pass this test. 



76 



Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 



The third attention test required the subject to count the 
number of o's in a paragraph of fairly fine print. The letter 
occurred 554 times, and failure to detect as many as 70% of 
the entire number was regarded as a subnormal result, the final 
score being based on five trials. Sixteen were unable to reach 
the standard. 

There were likewise three suggestion tests. 

In the first, the cards used to determine the attention span 
were again employed. After all the free report had been made, 
the observer was asked if she did not remember having seen 
certain other objects none of which were really present. If 20% 
or over of the suggestions were accepted the subject was classified 
as subnormal. Fifteen proved to be so suggestible that they 
were classed as failures. 

Secondly, ten cards were shown, on each of which a pair of 
equal white circles was pasted but unequal numbers were written 
on the faces. After each card was shown the subject was asked 
which of the two circles was the larger. When 70% or more 
of the judgments stated that circles bearing larger numbers were 
in reality larger themselves, the subject was considered ab- 
normally suggestible. This was found to be true for 16 girls. 

In the third test, the subject was shown one by one a set of 
12 lines, the first five of which increased progressively in length 
by 12 mm, while the later seven lines remained equal in length. 
The subject was asked to reproduce each line as it was shown 
her, and if she continued increasing the later equal lines because 
of the tendency formed in the earlier five, she was considered 
suggestible. A coefficient of 75% or over was regarded as 
abnormal, and measured by this standard 19 of the subjects 
fell into the abnormal group. 

Summarizing the results of these nine tests, we find 11 of the 
35 subjects, that is, 31%, to be subnormal; that is, they failed 
six tests out of nine. Three of the subjects passed all nine tests 
correctly. Later, eight of these tests were given to 35 subjects 
who were students in Mt. Holyoke and to seven students in 
Amiherst. Comparing the failures here with the failures in the 
Bedford women, we find the following : 



Other Investigations 77 



(1) Reaction Test: 








Mt. Holyoke 

Bedford 


5 
11 






(2) Memory Test, Auditory: 




Visual: 




Mt. Holyoke 

Amherst 

Bedford 




17 


Mt. Holyoke 

Amherst 

Bedford 


1 

11 


(3) Attention, Span: 




Counting o's: 




Mt. Holyoke 

Amherst 

Bedford 






19 


Mt. Holyoke 

Amherst 

Bedford 




16 


(4) Suggestion, Direct: 




Circle: Line: 




Mt. Holyoke 

Amherst 

Bedford 


3 

2 

15 


9 

4 

36 


4 

2 

19 



Just recently a book on " Commercialized Prostitution in 
New York" has appeared in which Dr. Catherine Bement Davis, 
then superintendent of the Bedford Reformatory for Women, 
contributes a chapter. Discussing the mentality of 647 women, 
made the basis of the statistical report, we find 20 had been 
pronounced insane by commissions in lunacy; three others were 
to be transferred because of insanity, while 107 were regarded as 
distinctly feeble-minded. Of the 647 women, 116 had been 
graded by Binet tests. For these the following result was 
obtained : 



Mental Age 


No. 


OF Cases 


5 yrs. 




2 


6 




1 


7 




6 


8 




6 


9 




29 


10 




44 


11 




26 


12 




2 



The 44 falling in the group between five and ten years were 
regarded as undoubtedly feeble-minded, the remainder of the 
group as possibly so. Sixty-seven other women were classified 
as undoubtedly feeble-minded on the basis of observation. Fifty- 
two others were regarded as distinctly border-line cases ; of these 
it was said that they formed the most troublesome group in the 
institution, for 90% of the disciplinary troubles were attributable 



78 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

to them. Twenty-six of the 52 were regarded as uneducable. 
Their general intelligence was particularly poor ; they were capa- 
ble of being taught a certain amount of manual work, whereas the 
other 26 were able to do school work pretty well but lacked 
continuity of purpose or were devoid of moral sense. Eleven 
of the group were regarded as the equivalent of tramps; that is, 
they were chronic runaways. Combining these groups, we have 
a total of 193 individuals or 29.8% who are mental defectives. 

Insane transferred to asylum 20 

Insane tendencies 3 

Feeble-minded (distinctly so) 107 

Border-line: Neurotic 26 

Weak-willed 26 

Rtmaways 11 

193 

In 1912, Dr. E. V. Grabe undertook a study of 62 prostitutes 
who were being treated at the City Hospital in Hamburg. 
This study — reported under the title " Prostitution, Kriminalitat 
und Psychopathic " — consisted of a physical and psychological 
examination. The latter was based on the replies to the 
following 28 questions: 

1. Name. 

2. Place and date of birth. 

3. Religion. 

4. What other religions are there ? 

5. How many inhabitants are there in Hamburg ? 

6. On what river is the city located ? 

7. How many classes of train service are there ? 

8. From what is bread made ? 

9. When and why is Christmas celebrated ? 

10. How many days are there in a month ? 

11. How many legs has a grasshopper ? 

12. What are the colors and cost of different stamps ? 

13. What is the difference between a river and a pond ? 

14. Between a basket and a box ? 

15. What is the opposite of greed ? 

16. Test of attention. 

17. Forming sentence in which three definite words are used. 

18. Season of the year. 

19. The different directions. 

20. Counting. 

21. Completion test. 

22. Name of head physician of the hospital. 

23. Name of the emperor. 

24. Occupation of examiner. 

25. What is the heavier, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers ? 

26. How many centimeters in a meter ? 

27. What is the size of a person ? 

28. What would you do if you had a great deal of money ? 



Other Investigations 79 

Each subject was tested separately, a control group numbering 
30, all of about the same social class and engaged in similar 
occupations as the other group, was used. The results of the 
psychological examination are given in a general, descriptive 
manner only, the author stating that the subject who succeeds 
is certainly not subnormal; on the other hand, failure on the 
tests does not necessarily indicate subnormality. 

The responses to the various questions are then analyzed in 
detail; numbers 8, 10, 11, 12, 22 and 24 are omitted as not 
having been satisfactory for one reason or another and number 
28 was not given to the control group. Number 1 was answered 
correctly in every case, while two of the prostitute group gave 
incorrect ages, both cases being older women who presumably 
wished to appear younger. In questions 5, 16 and 23, the results 
were almost the same for the two groups ; the first being answered 
poorly, the second correctly by all. This test of attention — 
repeating a three place number three to five minutes after it 
was first heard — was, of course, extremely easy. 

In all other questions, the control group attained a better 
record than the group of prostitutes. Thus as regards question 
9, all the control group answered correctly, whereas 20 of the 
60 in the other group failed; again on questions 13 and 14, 
27 of the control group were correct as opposed to 33 right on 
question 13, and 45 right on question 14, in the second group. 

As regards question 21, the Ebbinghaus completion test, the 
method of scoring was not the same for the two groups. Two 
of the prostitute group and four of the control group answered 
promptly and correctly. In the control group, where all errors 
were scored, 65 errors were made, or an average of 2 . 1 7 per subject. 
No exact record of errors was kept in the prostitute group but 
general comments on their performances were noted. Thus 
there were some who could not perform the test at all; five did 
it well; in 43 cases where errors were counted they totaled 107, 
average 2.5, range 1 to 7 errors. In three cases, the performance 
was noted as " good "; in 11, as " uneven "; in other cases as 
" did not succeed," " scarcely one right," etc. Thus the total 
result in the prostitute group as measured by that of the con- 
trol group is inferior with great variation among the members. 

In the last question, which was given only to the hospital 
group, the most noticeable feature of the replies was the lack 



80 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

of the altruistic impulse. Only one subject mentioned giving 
to the poor; 13 would save for the future, but the majority of 
the replies were " egotistic " — they would live well, enjoy them- 
selves, buy fine clothes, go in business, etc. 

The author says, " In spite of all criticism of the tests, the 
results are in favor of the control group. The subjective im- 
pression obtained was that the more stupid of the control group 
were at any rate more " decent " (anstandig) than some of the 
prostitutes whose intelligence may have been greater. Among 
the prostitutes one finds in reality some very intelligent persons 
and all gradations down to undoubted imbecility." Real idiots 
were not found. 

Then follows a resume of the family conditions gathered 
through conversation with the subject, through letters from 
former teachers and friends. These show eight of the 62 to 
have been illegitimate children and 17 to have been reared in 
institutions. The list of occupations of the fathers leads the 
author to conclude that in most cases the families were not in 
poverty and not of the very lowest class, nor was it economic 
need that was a factor in the early delinquency. From all this 
he believes the effect of environment to have been over-empha- 
sized in many discussions; it is an influence, but one that is effec- 
tive according to the nature of the individual. 

Combining all the data, that of test results as well as informa- 
tion from others, he believes that 22, or one-third, were feeble- 
minded; six others were acting under the influence of hysteria; 
one was possibly a case of dementia. There remained, therefore, 
a number where nothing positive coiild be found except early 
unsteadiness, unreliability, moral indifference. Hence, concludes 
the author, these must be degenerates ! 

A study of " The Relation Between Occupation and Criminal- 
ity of Women " was made by Miss Mary Conyngton and 
published at Washington, 1911; it is one of the reports on the 
Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners. It is based on 
data regarding 3,229 women in reformatories and prisons in 
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, IlHnois. 
Of these, the age distribution is as follows : 



Other Investigations 81 

Under 19 years of age 16 .2% 

20—24 years 19 . 1% 

25—29 " 15.2% 

30—34 " 12 .9% 

35—39 " 12.9% 

40—44 " 9.3% 

45—49 " 6.6% 

50 plus 7.8% 

Regarding the literacy of these women, it was found that 

79.9% could read and write. 

.5% could read only. 
17.9% knew the alphabet. 
1.7% ignorant even of this. 

As for the occupations in which they had engaged, 

80.7% had been engaged in household service. 
8.9% " " " " factories. 

2.0% " " " " mercantile pursuits. 

8.4% " " " " no occupation or no legal occupation. 

The author then states that the lack of intelligence in the 
servant group indicates that these women could not do much 
else and that their criminality is due to poor intellect and 
loneliness. 

A paper read at a convention of physicians in Cologne in 1908 
by Christian Mueller is reported in the Neurologisckes Central- 
hlatt of that year. It is entitled " Die Psyche der Prostitu- 
ierten," and is a study of registered prostitutes who came to the 
psychiatric clinic for treatment. The study comprised a 
physical, neurological and psychological examination, but the 
latter is reported in only the most general terms. It dealt with 
" knowledge, memory, comprehension, etc." Emphasis was 
laid on the early life and family conditions, school corroboration 
was sought. Acute mental disturbance was scarcely found at 
all; on the other hand, forms of congenital feeble-mindedness 
and so-called psycho-neurosis were frequent. Very striking was 
the large per cent of epilepsy and hysteria — 18% to 30% — 
according as the term epilepsy is widely or narrowly used. 
15%were imbeciles and 15% middle grade feeble-minded; 12% 
were excessively alcoholic and 20% showed a high degree of 
nervous excitability but no psychic disturbance; 8% were 
psychopathic. 

These results corroborate, on the whole, the findings of Octave 
Simonot, who studied 2,000 prostitutes in St. Lazare. No 
statistical account is given in his work, but the descriptive 



82 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

recital of characteristics shows a large per cent of neuroses and 
extreme excitability and instability as true in all cases. 

Dr. Ulrich Scheven in an article on " Geistes Storung und 
Verbrechen in Mecklenburg — Schwerin " reports concerning 
114 cases, 88 men and 26 women, whom he studied. Of these 
cases he finds 46 to belong to the feeble-minded class; 33 cases 
being classified by him as idiots and imbeciles and 13 cases as 
higher grade feeble-minded. Of these, congenitally poor in 
mental endowment, the commonest offense was theft, then pros- 
titution, then arson. What per cent of the 46 cases are women, 
we cannot tell. Dr. Scheven compares the number of criminals 
among the insane with the per cent of criminals among the whole 
population and finds the result to be 3.9% among the former as 
compared with .8% among the latter. (In Germany as a 
whole, 1.2%.) 

Naecke, in his discussion of " Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim 
Weibe," states that 15.1% of the criminal women examined 
were certainly mentally ill and another group of 20.4% probably 
so; thus at least one-fifth to one-fourth were probably not 
responsible. 

He made a study of 100 cases found in the hospital for the 
insane, 53 of whom had been transferred there from various 
institutions of punishment. The remaining 47 were insane 
patients who had been punished for crime at least once, or more 
accurately, who had been punished or tried at least once. 

Of the 53 cases, 52.8% had been in household service, 20.8% 
had been engaged in various types of handwork, 15.2% as factory 
workers; the remainder, one each in various other occupations. 
The number who had been sex offenders was not known, but 
the criminal acts were as follows: theft, 27 cases or 51%; 
arson, 9 cases or 9.4%; murder, or its attempt, 4 cases or 7.5%. 
Four of the five cases of vagrancy were diagnosed as feeble- 
minded, one being also epileptic; six of the nine arson cases 
were regarded as imbecile and two of the four murderers as 
feeble-minded. The author states it as his opinion that incar- 
ceration does not bring psychoses — those disposed, may there 
develop it — oftener it is already true before entrance. Of the 
47 other cases nine, or 19.2%, were considered surely insane and 
11 cases, or 23%, probably deranged. The author concludes 
that mentality is, in many cases of criminality, the latent pre- 



Other Investigations 83 

disposition and social factors the inciting causes, but that there 
is no criminal type, no born criminal. 

Langreuter classified one-third of the prisoners ill enough to be 
sent to the hospital as mentally sick, Mendel, three-fourths as 
being abnormal. Kern, examining 129 cases, said that but 15 
were absolutely normal and Guenther said 40% were abnormal. 

In a discussion of " Der Sexual Verbrecher," Dr. Erich 
Wulffen quotes statistics given by several writers. One, Baum- 
garten, found that according to data covering three years, there 
were punished for crime 32, 30 and 41 feeble-minded cases, 
respectively, among a total of 2,400 prostitutes. 

But Bonhoffer, studying 190 prostitutes incarcerated in prison 
at Breslau, found only 60 normal; two-thirds being mentally 
defective, that is, hysterical, epileptic or feeble-minded. 

The data regarding conditions in England are likewise meagre. 
In an abstract of the report of the Royal Commission on the 
Care and Control of the Feeble-minded (1909) there appears 
the following table regarding the children at Renaud Homes, 
based on 100 boys and 28 girls taken at random: 





Boys 


Girls 


Abovq the average 

Normal 

Eccentric 


2 

5 

56 

— 63 


1 


11 
— 12 


Backward 

Slightly feeble-minded 


18 

10 

9 


7 
5 
4 




— 37 


— 16 




100 


28 



Helen Bemington, vSuperintendent of York Rescue House, 
estimates the feeble-minded received there as 30 per cent. 

In the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 
Vol. 2, 1911-1912, George A. Auden, Medical Superintendent, 
Educational Committee of Birmingham, England, writes on 
" Feeblemindedness and Juvenile Crime." There were among 
juveniles 16 to 21 years of age, in the year ending March, 1909, 
263 convictions, and in the year 1910, 554 convictions. The 
degree of education of these culprits is as follows : 



84 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

Illiterate Standard 

I II III IV V VI VII 

1909 3 26 70 87 59 12 3 3 

1910 25 99 157 121 104 27 11 10 

There has recently appeared a book on " Prostitution in 
Europe," by Abraham Flexner, in which conditions as found in 
European countries are reviewed. In quoting the evidence 
regarding the mentality of women sex offenders, the author 
cites the same conditions mentioned in the introduction of this 
study, as qualifying the available data. He says, " The fore- 
going statistics are obviously, however, not fully representative, 
derived as they are mainly from the records of hospital, police, 
prison and rescue homes. Professionals of low grade and failures 
are perhaps too largely included, the dull drudges who are most 
likely to fall into the hands of the law; the stupid who most 
readily give up in despair." 

Keeping in mind this caution, he finds Merrick's data (G. P. 
Merrick, '"Work Among Fallen Women") as to the educational 
opportunities enjoyed by prostitutes to be generally sustained; 
less than one-tenth of Merrick's cases had had anything beyond 
the most rudimentary training. " German prostitutes show at 
most only the compulsory Volkschule education. Of minors 
apprehended in 1901, 36% of those over 12 years of age had 
completed the popular elementary school, one-fifth of 1% had 
advanced further." "Of 21 girls recently admitted into a newly 
established observation home in Berlin, five were reported as 
mentally below par. Of Mrs. Booth's 150 cases, 12% were 
feeble-minded. In the cases of prostitutes committed under the 
British Inebriate Acts, the per cent naturally runs much higher; 
in 1909 out of 219 such immoral women only 70 are described 
as of 'good' mental state; 118 as 'defective,' 23 'very defective,' 
eight ' insane ' — that is, almost 70% were below normal." 

Quoting from Dr. Branthwaite, the author writes, " There is 
almost consistent evidence here of some causative relationship 
between mental defect and prostitution, but the evidence is by 
no means overwhelming enough to justify more than a general 
conclusion that mental defect is one of the many causes for its 
prevalence." 

"155 Berlin cases between 12 and 21 years of age yield 
equally as striking results ; 30% are reported as mentally intact, 



Other Investigations 85 

23% feeble-minded, 43% psychopathic. 66% are, therefore, 
abnormal." (Quoted from Helenef Stelzner, " Gibt es geborene 
Prostituierte ? ") 

As regards the age at which prostitution begins, German 
authorities hold the dangerous period to be between 12 and 21 
years, few entering such careers after 21. Bending, studying 
the conditions in Stuttgart from 1894-1908, found the first 
immorality to have occurred before the age of 17 in 55% of the 
cases; from 16 to 18 years in 70% of the cases, and between 14 
and 25 years in 97.3% of the cases. The truth of the state- 
ment is readily perceived when Flexner says, " How far these 
statistics are reliable, representative or significant, it is impossible 
to say. Expert scientific study of large numbers of women from 
each of the strata of prostitution, without as well as within 
prisons, reformatories, hospitals and refuges, is needed in order 
to clear up the question." 

Not only this, but data regarding educational opportunities, 
literacy and acquired knowledge, are really insufficient. More 
interesting and valuable still would be studies of native capacity, 
general intelligence, presence or lack of any real ability. Such 
study cotdd be found only through experimental investigations. 

That such a need is recognized by many is apparent in the 
discussions of those interested in the question. Thus in a recent 
jotirnal, Dr. Healy writes: 

" If we made a business-like approach to criminalism we should 
first ascertain who and what proportion among criminals have 
the innate ability to meet ordinary social conditions without 
falling by the wayside and who have not. Then proceeding 
from that line of demarcation all sorts of studies might be made 
of why those fail who have the innate capacity to succeed." 



2. CONCLUSIONS 

As a result of these experiments, we may conclude that 
certain tests serve to define the intellectual status of various 
groups of individuals, so that they can be compared one with 
the other. The tests for general intelligence which have been 
found, in other studies, to throw light on the capacity of different 
individuals, prove of value when applied to a problem such as 
the one dealt with in this study. They enable one to form 
some judgment of the general ability of the members of the 
groups, and to compare groups as a whole with each other. 

If now we attempt to answer our original question, "Are these 
thirty delinquent girls so lacking in intellectual capacity that 
they are unable to earn a livelihood in legitimate vocations ? " 
we must answer, in the light of our findings, " No more so than 
others who are succeeding in doing so." 

Compared with the group of college students, we find the 
delinquents much less capable; compared with members of 
evening classes as represented by our group, we find the delin- 
quents still the less capable of the two. Undoubtedly the delin- 
quent group, as a whole, is poor in ability, yet it is composed of 
girls who vary greatly among themselves, for the best in the 
group is six times as successful as the poorest in the group, 
averaging the results on the six general intelligence tests. The 
poorest members of the group are very poor indeed. 

But the results attained by Group S show that this lack of 
capacity, in and of itself, does not explain the fact of delinquency, 
for Group S, though no more gifted, yet contains only members 
who are not and have not been deHnquent as far as known. 

Since Groups D and S, when compared, prove to be quite 
on a par as far as general intelligence is concerned, we must 
conclude that the explanation of the delinquent tendencies 
shown by members of Group D is something other than the 
intellectual status alone. This does not mean, of course, that 
the mentality may not be one factor; but, at least, there must 
be other factors as well which cause these individuals to engage 

86 



Conclusions 87 

in careers that lead them into conflict with the law, while others 
of like mentality experience no such difficulties. 

Just what these other factors may be requires much more 
elaborate study. One does not know what part is played by 
home conditions, nor what has been the influence and example 
of parents and associates; one can not tell without special 
investigation how much or how little the environment has shel- 
tered the individual girl; nor does one know the shocks and 
temptations to which each has been subjected. Education, 
companionship, wholesome interests and recreations — all these 
and many other forces combine to make each person what he is. 
Perhaps physical factors are involved as well; perhaps, too, the 
emotional make-up of different individuals varies so that what 
is temptation for one is not equally so for another. 

At any rate, the results of these experiments tend to show that 
in a study of the causative factors involved in the beginnings 
of careers such as our delinquent group represents, it is not 
sufficient to give mental tests alone, essential as these are; nor 
can one lay all the blame for delinquencies in behavior at the 
door of poor mental gifts. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

This includes only such studies as are experimental or statis- 
tical in treatment ; it does not include general discussions of the 
problem. 

AuDEN, Geo. A. Feeblemindedness and Juvenile Crime. American Insti- 
tute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 2, 1911-12. 

Barrows, Isabel, C. Reformatory Treatment of Women in the United 
States. 

BoNHOEFFER. Zeitschrift fur die ges. Strafwissenschaft, Vol. 23. 

Burnet, A. A Study of Delinquent Girls. Institutional Quarterly (Illinois). 
June 30, 1912. 

CoNYNGTON, Mary. The Relation Between Occupation and Criminality 
of Women. 

Flexner, a. Prostitution in Europe. 

Fry. The Problem of the Feeble-Minded. (Abstract of Report of Royal 
Commission on Care and Control of Feeble-Minded.) 

GiFFORD and Goddard. Defective Children in the Juvenile Court. Train- 
ing School, January, 1912. 

V. Grabe, E. Prostitution, Kriminalitat und Psychopathic. Archiv fur 
Kriminal Anthropologic wtd Kriminalistik, Vol. 48, 1912. 

Herz, Hugo. Die Kriminalitat des Weibes nach den Ergebnissen der 
neueren Oesterreichise Statistik. Archiv fur K. und K., Vol. 18, 1905. 

Kneeland, Geo J. Commercialized Prostitution in New York. 

LoEB, H. Statistisches iiber Geschlechtskrankheiten in Mannheim. Zeits- 
chrift fur Bekaempfung der Ceschlects-Kheiten, Vol. 2. 

LoMBROSO, Cesare. The Female Offender. 

Merrick, G. P. Work Among Fallen Women. 

Miner, Maude E. Reformatory Girls. Charities Feb. 1907. 

Morrow (Louise) and Bridgman (O). Delinquent Girls Tested by the 
Binet Scale. Training School, May, 1912. 

Mueller, C. Die Psyche der Prostituierten. Neurologisches Centralblatt, 
Vol. 27, 1908. 

Naecke, Paul. Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe. 

Report of Inspection under Inebriates Act. 1879-1900. For year 1909. 

Rowland, E. Experiments at New York State Reformatory for Women. 
Psychological Review, May, 1913. 

Scheven, Ulrich. Geistesstorung und Verbrechen in Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin. 

ScHREiBER, Adele. Mutterschaft. 

SiMONOT, Octave. Psychologic Physiologique de la Prostituee. Annales 
d'hygiene puhliqne, Nov., 1911. 

Statistisches Jahrhuch fur das Deutsche Reich. 

Stelzner, H. F. Gibt es Geborene Prostituierte? 

Whitin, F. H. The Women's Night Court in New York. Annals of Amer- 
ican Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 1914. 

WuLFFEN, Erich. Der Sexual Verbrecher. Encyklopaedie der Modernen 
Ej-iminalistik, ed. by Dr. Paul Langenscheidt. 

88 



( 



APPENDIX I 



Description of Tests Used 



Test J, "Easy Opposites " Test 

IV, a. As quickly as possible give oraUy a word that means the exact 
opposite of each word in the list. 



I 



good 

outside 

quick 

tall 

big 

loud 

white 

light 

happy 

false 

like 

rich 

sick 

glad 

thin 

empty 

war 

many 

above 

friend 

c 

high 

up 

wet 

new 

soft 

wider 

wrong 

yes 

young 

brave 

winter 

weak 

forget 

wild 

beginning 

straight 

raise 

rough 

love 

noisy 



stale 
hot 
dirty 
heavy- 
late 
first 
left 

morning 
much 
near 
north 
open 
in 

sharp 
east 
sour 

something 
stay 
push 
nowhere 

d 
day 
asleep 
absent 
brother 
best 
over 
big 

backwards 
buy 
come 
cheap 
broad 
dead 
land 
country 
tall 
son 
here 
less 
easy 



89 



90 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

Test II, "Hard Opposites." 

Write as quickly as you can beside each word in the column a word that 
means the exact opposite of it. Do the best you can with each word rather 
than leave the space blank. 



vertical 

ignorant 

rude 

simple 

deceitful 

stingy 

permanent 

over 

to degrade 

weary 

to spend 

to reveal 

genuine 

level 

broken 

wild 

part 

past 

permit 

precise 



senous 
grand 

clumsy 

to win 

to respect 

frequently 

to lack 

apart 

stormy 

motion 

forcible 

to float 

straight 

to hold 

after 

unless 

rough 

to bless 

to take 

exciting 



d 
succeed 
strict 
tardy 
sleepy 
suspicious 
rigid 
suave 
sinftil 

conservative 
refined 
pride 

despondent 
imaginary 
beautiful 
injurious 
diligent 
sell 
sure 
active 
venturesome 



c "» 
tender 
animated 
proficient 
impoverish 
cruel 
generous 
haughty 
silly 

insignificant 
disastrous 
miser 
result 
hindrance 
strength 
innocent 
busy 

remember 
increase 
preserve 
belief 



Appendix 



91 



Test III, "Memory of Words" Test. 

VI, a. Write down all the words in the list that you can remember after 
hearing them read once. 



picture 

silly 

unless 

lizard 

book 

pain 

island 

tin 

literature 

axe 

run 

tomato 

tired 

frost 

wide 

Indian 



b 

knife 

window 

peacock 

brass 

weary 

rich 

vine 

servant 

pinch 

wheel 

hammock 

horn 

pitiless 

crack 

beef 

glue 



mouse 
bank 



cheap 

country 

study 

tooth 

musician 

pie 

building 

fruit 

weapon 

spider 

mountain 

shallow 

window 



whisper 

Columbus 

necessary 

laugh 

dictionary 

cane 

key 

doctor 

boat 

enough 

walking 

rent 

earth 

canvas 

carpet 

steam 



Test IV, "Memory of Passages." 

Write down all that you can remember of the substance of the passage 
after hearing it read once. 

a 

It isn't necessary to read a book in order to be happy with it. On a 
steamer or in a hammock you simply have to have the book in your lap or 
close at hand, with the paper-cutter and pencil. It must be the sort of 
book you like. You open it and read the table of contents. A deep peace 
fills your soul. Here is this delicious book and the whole day, both yours. 
You lean back to think of books by these men and by others that you 
already know and love. Memory brings you one beautiful picture after 
another. 

b 

Thirty-two passengers were injured, none of them seriously, by the de- 
railment of the Chattanooga and Washington Limited train on the Southern 
Railway, thirty miles south of Charlottesville, and just north of Ryan's 
Siding, Virginia, early today. A broken rail was the cause of the accident. 



92 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 

The entire train, composed of a baggage car, day coach and three sleepers, 
left the track, the sleepers being almost destroyed by fire. A special train 
was quickly made up and proceeded to this city with all the passengers of 
the Limited. The wreck blocked the track for several hours, all trains mean- 
while being detained. 

c 

Langford of the Three Bars, as the title suggests, is a story of the West 
depicting cowboy life. The scenes are in South Dakota of the time of the 
"rustlers," who cared for neither the interference of man nor law. The 
action turns around the Three Bars Ranch, which is run by Paul Langford, 
"a man — a godlike type with his sunny hair and his great strength," whose 
object it is to do away with the cattle thieves headed by Jesse Black. He 
is aided by Gorden, the county attorney, and Jim Munson, a real cowboy. 

d 
One morning a couple of Springs ago, if any of your readers had chanced 
this way, they might have seen me coming from the vineyard with two blue- 
birds, one in each hand. The birds were well and vigorous and entirely un- 
harmed. If questioned I might have explained that I went down into the 
vineyard and picked the birds up off the ground, where they had the full 
possession of their wings, and that there are times when it is not difficult for 
me to do such things. These birds were of the species known as the Least- 
fiy-catcher, or Chebeck Bird. 

Test V, "Ebbinghaus Mutilated Text." 

(The subject was first shown what was to be done on a sample sheet similar 
to the ones given below.) 

Fill in each blank with the word which will make the best sense. Do the 
work as well and as quickly as you can. Put only one word in each blank 
space. 

a 

Park Hill on the Hudson offers you a solution the home prob- 
lem today. No home seeker investor afford to ignore 

its claims. Escape the wear and tear the city's noise 

rush this open air paradise, just the city's edge, 

all respects an ideal home location yourself and family. 

are cottages containing every improvement waiting 

you to step and make yourself comfortable. It not 

commands the most beautiful view around New York is pro- 
tected for all times intrusion. Choice lots are now selling on very 

easy terms. 

b 

We believe we can prove you that this investment is 

secure the dividends so sure, that it justifies you with- 
drawing money the Savings Bank, it is earning 3^% 

and putting it our business where it will earn 7%. We are a 

New England Enterprise, managed New England men, and we 

have behind a record fourteen years of unbroken suc- 
cess. you have much or little you cannot to let slip 

this opportunity of doubling the from your savings. Prompt 

action in this matter will you well. 

c 

I asked the slovenly, cheerful female answered the 

bell the landlady; wondering the while 1 should say 

when I was asked references. The merriment had not been called 

forth anything amusing my appearance, my 



Appendix 93 

vanity had feared, by a story which a man sitting the 

head ,of the table was just finishing. The only vacant chair the 

room was beside him, and, rather awkwardly, 1 felt that they 

were my measure, I made my toward it. As I 

down he greeted with a polite bow. 

d 

If we are well, thoroughly sound, we not be de- 
pressed. The perfectly healthy animal no worries. The remedy 

has already indicated. Regretfully it is simple 

very few people take the trouble to it. it is clearly 

and widely recognized that is stupid, that its is simple 

where is no organic trouble, worry wiU . Worry is 

simply a of what the sake of a nice large word, is called 

"neuresthenia," nerve depletion. plenty of recreation, plenty 

of fresh air, and the man will not worry. 

Test VI, Adapted Completion Test or Moral Judgment Test 

Mary had gotten a good position. She could earn a good 

living if worked steadily. She did not working 

hard and so she her position. Was this what she deserved 

? 

William had determined to gain education, no matter 

-great an effort it required. All day he the 



machine in the factory, but when night came he cheerfully- 
to the nearby night school where he worked hard. 

In Holland there a village which is said to be the cleanest 

the world. The houses inside and outside, the streets, and 

every thing about the place are kept as as a pin. Women 

wearing clumsy wooden shoes may be seen the houses and 

pavements. 

Mary knew mother worried if did not come home 

on time. One evening Mary invited to spend the night 

with a friend. She said " Mother worry, but I want to go 

very much." She told her friend she do as she asked. She 

if she worried her mother. 

At last the dinner done, the was cleared, the room 

swept and the fire lighted. The in the pitcher was tasted 

and considered perfect, apples and were put upon the table. 

Mary's mother her not to go with John. One day she 

out saying she was going to a friend. She really 

met John. She said to herself, " It really is and so I told 

." That was . 

Everything beautiful in Spring. The leaves begin to grow 

the trees, the grass is green then and begin to 

bloom. The air is nice and warm and the sun nearly every 

day. 

A girl went into a to buy a hat. The felt hats on one counter 

were $1.75 and the velvet hats on another counter 

marked $2.48. One velvet hat by mistake with the felt 

hats that cost $1.75. So she that one. Wasn't she 



In the Anna's mother would have supper ready when Anna's 

father came . He would be to be home again and 

would the children. After supper Anna would help 

dishes while her father read his paper. 

A lived at home. Her mother had a great deal to . 

The daughter saw this. She tried to help her mother; 

every one who knew her said she was . 



94 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 
Now that she older, Hattie thought she should- 



something to aid the church that had so benefited her. She was not 

content to the service but offered to teach a class each 

and did so throughout the winter. 

Bessie never missed day at school if she could help it. There 

she liked to and to write, and to play the children 

at recess. But it was harder to keep all day at school. 

Two factory girls, Anna and Rose eating their dinner at one 

table. A group of men were their dinner at another table. 

The girls them and talked more . They were 

girls and that sort of thing. 

Lucy was quite ill, so that she was unable to go 

work. Her friend, Jane, knew this and as Lucy had very little money 

Jane thought she would take her some . She did this and 

Lucy was . 

I like be out of doors in the country. I enjoy taking 

walks; I can listen to the birds in the trees, and sometimes I 

a bird's nest. 

A girl was given 35 cents with which to some coffee. She 

it for 25 cents and took it . She told her 

mother about it and the change. Don't you 

think she was . 



If I a purse full of money I'd buy a pair of warm , 

a load of wood, a for mother and a pair of for me; 

and if there were enough left, I'd give to my little sister. 

There many opportunities for improving oneself in a big city. 

First there are schools, both and night. Then there are 

libraries from which books can be taken home. There are 

concerts and many other means of education. 

A was very hungry. He passed a with food outside 

and wanted . He no money but he 



rather than be ■. A girl saw him and thought him- 



The girl went to church every Sunday . On the way she would 

her friends and they would together. When 

they reached the Sunday School they would go to the where 

their class was held. 

In the morning Anna the smaller children get ready for school. 

She their faces, their hair, and saw that they 

started on . She was because she was busy. 

Two girls were waiting a street corner for a car. A crowd of 

men standing near them. The girls knew the men were 

talking about them and watching them. So the girls began to 
. This showed they . 

After Henry received this vast of money, he wished to 

something for those less fortunate than himself. He deter- 
mined to purchase and distribute it at Christmas 

the poor. 

John several duties to perform on the farm. He 

the cows to pasture every morning and every . he brought 

them once more safely to the barn. He fed the and carried 

water from the well the house. 

Jane went night to a dance hall. When came into 

the hall, she saw there was a number of strange men there. She at 

once became and all evening she tried to them. 

She must have had a time. 

The farmer boy likes to have winter because it freezes the 

ground so that can't dig in it. Besides the ground is covered 

snow so that there is no driving the cows to pasture. 



Appendix 95 

Jane was asked which she would ^have, some money- 



the bank for her to save or a beautiful pin. Jane was very 

and so she took the . 

Susan was desirous of assisting younger sister to gain a 

living than she herself was earning. She realized this 

meant education than her own and she was willing to deny 

herself in order that her sister might be able to take a trade 

course at the Trade School. 

It was a pleasure to observe the affection which the servants 

felt toward their mistress. They were anxious to her and 

each desired to something for her. 

When their father was well enough to home the children were 

happy indeed. Each wished to show some way their happi- 
ness. The rooms were and cleaned and everything made 

cheerful as possible. 

Mary liked pretty clothes very . She a man who 

ofiEered to give her a new suit if she would go out with him. She was 
-to do this and to go in this way to the theatre. 



That was- 



One day Tom a little child crying on the street. He- 



the child the reason for its tears and learned the was lost. 

He next asked the child its address and immediately took it- 



There is much interesting in the city. There are the 

stores where many things are sold. There are, too, crowds 

of people walking on the streets; and one the noise and 

hurry. 

Mary's mother away and Mary to take care of her 

younger brothers and sisters. Mary liked to the children. 

This day she their toys and whenever they cried she 

them. Don't you think she was a girl ? 

Up rose Mrs. Cratchit dressed in a twice turned gown 

with ribbons. She the table, assisted by Belinda 

Cratchit, her daughter, also dressed. 

Jane was at a show one night. A man sitting next 

her, spoke to her several times. When she got up to go home he 
followed her. Jane and so showed that she . 

The thing delighted Jane most was to be permitted to 

her teacher. She busily the blackboards, 

scraps of paper that were on the floor, and on 

errands of all sorts. 



VITA 

AUGUSTA F. BRONNER. Born, Louisville, Ky., July 22, 
1881. 

Graduate of Louisville Normal School, 1900. B. S., Teachers 
College, Columbia University, 1906; A. M., 1911. 

Teacher, Louisville Pubhc Schools, 1901-1903; Louisville Girls' 
High School, 1906-1911; Assistant in Educational Psychology, 
Teachers College, Columbia University 1911-1913; Assistant 
Director of the Psychopathic Institute Juvenile Court, Chicago, 
1913— 



LRBJe'iS 



